2132 public hearing, with which the Senator from Oregon does not agree. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, on that point, I wonder whether the Sen- ator will yield to me, in order to permit me to clear up that matter. Mr. MORSE. First, I should like to complete my answer to the Senator from California. I wish to say that the evidence in re- gard to the charges against these em- ployees in the State Department re- ferred to by number in the specch by the Senator from Wisconsin exists now; if it exists at all, it is in being now. The committee can proceed in executive session to consider what is presented to it, for the purpose of determining whether that information justifies the holding of a public hearinr. The ques- tion whether the evidence which is brought to the committee or the evi- dence which, to their knowledge, is avail- able, 1s evidence which should result in the filing of charges against a certain individual, will be for the committce to determine. It may reach those deci- sions in executive session under my amendment. However, I say that when the committees reaches the point of de- c.sion that probable cause exists for pro- eocding against a certain individual on a charge of disloyalty then let it con- duct its hearing in pubhc. Let it do so by way of taking testimony and evidence in public, in keeping with what I think is @ rather funjamental right in this country, namely, the right to be pro- tecved from false accusations in so-called Star-chamber proceedings, against which the accused has no way of protecting himself, unless he can draw out the charges in the full glare of a public hearing. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, will the Senator yield to me now? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER,. Let me say to the Senator from Oregon that exactly what the Senator from California sug- gestcd about the Canadian spy ring case did occur. One of the two chief male- factors in that casc, one of the two chief criminals who sold out their coun- try, goes scot free today because after publicity was given, the only connecting witness who could hook up the treach- erous conduct of that man became un- available, for various reasons, and the Canadian commission had to dismiss the case against a man who was clearly and palpably criminally negligent in re- gard to the Canadian spy ring. Iam not arf.uing the point one way or the other; but that exact situation oc- curred One man was convicted of trea- son. The other man, who is equally guilty, goes free today because the wit- ness to convict him became unavailable when publicity was given. Mr. MORSE. I think the statement of the Senator from Iowa suggests its own obvious answer, in my judgment, namely, a rather inefficient trial group, a rather inefficient police group, a rather inefficient prosecutor group functioned in that case if they failed to hold their witnesses for public trial. The argu- ment implied in the statement of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Senator from Iowa is, I think, very dan- gerous, in this respect: We are hearing justification advanced for the use in this country, of so-called undercover tech- niques for bringing persons to judgment outside of an open trial. Wire tapping is a perfectly good example of it. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi- dent, if the Senator will yield further, I should like to clear up that point. Mr. MORSE. I shall yield after I finish this statement. I say that I think the weakness of the argument of the Senator from Iowa is that he should be supporting a stronger prosecuting system, a stronger police system, and a stronger investigating sys- tem in advance of the public trial. But when we reach the point of pre- paring to pass judgment on the question of whether a certain individual is or is not guilty of disloyalty to his government, then I say that, in the name of the Amer- ican public trial system, let us not g0 behind closed doors or adopt star-cham- ber proceedings. I do not accept the assumption of the Senator from Califor- nia and the Senator from Iowa in re- gard to the Canadian situation at all. Apparently the Canadians did not do a very good job of getting their case pre- pared if they let witnesses slip through their fingers or get away from them. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me at this time? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I should like to clear up that point, because the Sen- ator from Oregon is utterly misinterpret- ing what I said. Mr. MORSE. If I did, I had no in- tention of doing so, I may say to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I specifically stated that I was not arguing the merits or demerits of that procedure; I was merely verifying the fact that in the Canadian spy ring case, a circumstance which was suggested by the Senator from California did occur, in fact. The merits or demerits of the conduct of that case, I may at some later date dis- cuss. At the moment, I am not discuss- ing the righteousness of their procedure or the particular methods by which they proceeded. I was merely verifying the existence of the fact: I was not presenting an argu- ment either for or against it. I have my own views in regard to wire tapping, and I have my own views in regard to investigative methods. At this time I do not care to discuss them or to be un- derstood as d.scussing them. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to say to the Senator from Iowa that I had no intention of misinterpreting his re- marks. I say to him that I think the preparation of the case is one thing; the procedure that is to govern the trial is quite another thing. It is with respect to the procedure governing the trial it- self that I am raising my voice here to- day, because I want that procedure to be one which requires a public hearing. I do not want any secrecy or action behind closed doors, because to try these persons behind closed doors would, I think, jeopard.ze ccriain basic American free- doms. FEBRUARY 22 Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Sena- tor from Minnesota? Mr. MORSE. In a moment, Mr. Presi- dent. I am also of the opinion that we can establish the guilt of these persons without secret hearings or secret trials. I have so much faith in our American system of justice as to be convinced that in America it is possible in the case of anyone who in fact is guilty of treason to proceed against him in an open court- room, with proper investigation preced- ing the trial, and to convict him. I have tried to make it clear that I assume the investigation has been made or, if it has not been made, it will be made, in re- spect to the persons who have been charged by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. McCartHy] with disloyalty, and that when the evidence is ready for pres- entation, it will be presented in an open public hearing. That is the weieht of my argument, and that 1s all there is to my argument. My amendment in no way limits the committee in its inves- tigation preceding the actual trial. but does provide that the taking of evidence and testimony in respect to the individ- ual charged shall be in a public hearing. Mr. LUCAS and Mr. MUNDT ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. MORSE. I yield first to the Sena- tor from Illinois, and then I will yield to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. LUCAS. I am sure I understand the Senator, but I want to make as clear as possible his view of the procedure he is discussing. If the Foreign Relations Committee should decide to hold an ex- ecutive sesston on A, let us say, they would be permitted in executive session to take testimony against A on the ques- tion of his alleged disloyalty. Then, after having taken all the testimony they could find against A, if the commit- tee reached the conclusion that A was guilty of disloyalty, it is at that point that the Senator says their verdict would not be sufficient, but that A must be giv- en an opportunity to defend himself in pubhic. Am I correct? Mr. MORSE. If a Government official, X, brought a file to the committee in executive session, told the committee he believed that probable cause existed against A on the ground of disloyalty, and the committee in executive session looked at the file and a majority voted “we think so, too,” then I say at that point—and that is the point where there arises the question of judging the inno- cence or guilt of an employee—at that point, evidence and testimony shall be taken in a public hearing in order to establish either the guilt or innocence of the accused. Mr. LUCAS. I am sure I understand the Senator. Will the Senator yield for a further observation? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. As I understand, the amendment would in no wise deny the Committee on Foreign Relations the right in executive session to take all the
1950 testimony it wanted to take, in order to ascertain definitely —— Mr. MORSE. Whether the committee wants to proceed with the charge? Mr. LUCAS. That is correct. Mr. MORSE. Of course. Mr. LEHMAN and Mr. MUNDT ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. MORSE. I promised to yield to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, with that explanation of the amendment, it seems to me it may well be a procedure which could be generally supported by Members of the Senate. The thing which disturbs me is, I cannot make the language of the Senator’s amendment conform with his explanation. It seems to me the amendment should be rewrit- ten somewhat to make clear the position the Senator has now explained in answer to questions by the majority leader. What the Senator is endeavor- ing to do, as I understand, is to make sure no one who has been publicly ac- cused, or whose name has been publicly brought into the matter as a result of the hearing, shall be denied the right to respond publicly. Is that correct? Mr. MORSE. I think probably the difference between us is over the defini- tion of the word “hearing” in contrast to the word “investigation.” My amend- ment reads in terms of a hearing, and when I use the word “hearing,” I am using it technically to refer to the hear- ing to be held with respect to an indi- vidual accused of a certain offense. Mr. MUNDT. In the process, how- ever, the committee is going to have to meet in executive session, is it not? Mr. MORSE. Yes; for purposes of investigation. Mr. MUNDT. Yes; for purposes of in- vestigation I do not think we should deny the committee that right. Mr. MORSE. I do not deny it that right. Mr MUNDT. I completely agree with the Senator’s statement of the prin- ciples, in the manner in which he has defincd them in response to questions by the majority leader. It sounds like a very correct procedure. But I am afraid the language in the Senator's amend- ment itself dces not make that clear. Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oregon yield to the Sen- ator from New York? Mr MORSE. I yield. Mr. LEHMAN. The proposal now made by the distinguished Senator from Oregon 1s quite different from that con- tained in the original amendment. I understand what the Senator is trying to accomplish. I think it is a laudable purpose. But I believe it is very im- portant that the language of the amendment be very carefully scrutin- ized. I wonder whether the dis- tinguished Senator, in line with what he has said to the majority leader in the last few minutes, would accept an amendment, or would rewrite his amend- ment, to read as follows: “Any person CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE charged with disloyalty by or before the Foreign Relations Committee shall have the right to a public hearing by said committee.” That, I believe, would take care of the actual taking of testimony directed to the charges. It would make it clear that the committee could have private hearings in connection with its study and investigation of the entire subject, and it would not drag into the public notice accusations, charges, and rumors which have no substantiation, because there is no proof to sustain them. Such a provision, however, would give the right to every man accused, by or before the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, the right to be heard in public. Mr. MORSE. I do not think the Sen- ator from New York and the Senator from Oregon are apart at all in the ob- jective we seek, but I wonder whether it would help clarify the Recorn if I put it this way: The committee has full au- thority to proceed with what in law we call a preliminary investigation or a pre- liminary examination of the question as to whether probable cause exists, or whether a prima facie case exists for bringing a charge against Mr. X or Miss Y. My only point—and that is why I used the technical term “hearing”—is that when a hearing is begun for the purpose of taking the evidence and tes- timony on a charge made against an in- dividual, it should be in public. In my judgment, in this instance, a charge is not made until the Foreign Relations Committee brings out of its executive session a list of names of persons who, in the opinion of the committee, ought to be tried or heard on the question of their loyalty. It is at that point I say the hearings should be public, and I think it is only fair to the individuals to make the hearings public at that point. Mr. LEHMAN. That is what I was trying to accomplish by this qualifying suggestion. I am afraid that unless the wording of the amendment is very clear, some question may arise with regard to the public character of the original hearings. Mr. MORSE. May I read my revised amendment again to the Senator? Then, after I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, I shall take my seat and I shall then have a consultation with the Senator from New York, if we are unable to agree from the floor. The revised amendment reads: All hearings— When I am referring to hearings, it should be remembered I am talking about hearings to take evidence and testimony on a charge made against an individual; that is the only kind of hear- ing I have in mind— All hearings conducted by the committee for the purpose of taking evidence and tes- timony on any charges of disloyalty against any individual shall be public hearings. If the Senator will keep in mind the sense in which I use the word ‘“hear- ings,” not covering the so-called pre- liminary examination or investigation into the question as to whether probable cause or prima facie evidence exists for bringing charges, then I think my 2133 amendment accomplishes the same pur- pose which he suggests. Certainly the Recorp in explanation of my amend- ment would by now accomplish the pur- pose for the benefit of the committee. My amendment would in no way estop the committee from going into execu- tive session and looking into whatever records or information might be brought to the committee on the ques- tion as to whether the committee should bring charges of disloyalty against any particular individual. But, once it de- cides to bring the charges, then I think the hearings should be public. Mr. LEHMAN. I thank the Senator. Mr. THYE. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the the Senator from Oregon yield to the Senator from Minnesota? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. THYE. The first thing I should like to ask is, Is it the Senator's intention that all the records which would be available, whether held by one Federal agency or by another—and when I say one or the other, I mean that no file should be separated, but every document in the file should be made available to the committee having the responsibility of investigating—should be used by the committee in the preliminary investiga- tion, in secrecy or in executive session, so that no one would become familiar with or have access to the file, except committee members and whoever may be their counsel, so none of the documents would be held out? ‘The committee could do that in secret, and if they then determined that there was a justification on the part of the committee to hold official hearings, the hearing must be conducted in public. Is that the Sena- tor’s intention? Mr. MORSE. I shall answer the Sen- ator from Minnesota, and I want the Senators from Massachusetts and Cali- fornia to listen to me very carefully in my answer to that question because IT think it is very fundamental. Mr. THYE. I should like to make a further comment before the Senator answers. We are dealing with a philos- ophy and ideology. This is not like a criminal action, for example, a case in- volving murder or theft, in which the evidence may be connected with tangi- bles and physical things. We are deal- ing here with an ideology which justifies perjury and every conceivable method of concealing identity, such being consid- ered an honorable and laudable thing in the society in which the witnesses may travel and associate themselves For that reason, we have a different problem here. Mr. MORSE. I understand. M:. THYE. It is different from what ordinarily would be found in a criminal case. So the thought I have in mind is whether any Federal agency could hold back any of the documents or factual material in the files when they were sub- mitted to the Committee on Foreign Affairs for examination in executive session. Mr. MORSE. I quite agree with the Senator from Minnesota. When we are dealing with communism we confront an
2134 ideology so detestable that, as I have said before, there is not anything to which a Communist will not stoop in order to gain his ends. I hate it so much that I want to show that democratic processes are superior to it and that we can defeat it through democratic précesses. I do not want to make even a gesture to the po- lice-state methods of Russia. I do not want to use secret hearings in America to establish the communism of a disloyal person in this country. I do not think we have to do that. I think we are dealing with the type of situation which we fre- quently meet in criminal-law cases, when we know there is obtained from illegal sources which cannot be divulged in the open courtroom, some very important leads establishing the guilt of persons who have committed crimes. It has been said in case after case—and the number of cases is longer than my arm—that such evidence itself cannot be used in the courtroom to establish guilt, but we know it is constantly being used to get leads which can be used in the court- room for establishing guilt. In regard to the files which would be made available to the Committee on For- eign Relations on this subject, of course the committee has the right to go through the files, and I think it should have that right Ihave not shared the view of those who think that when it comes to the mat- ter of protecting the security of the Na- tion, Government files should be pro- tected from the study and analysis of the people’s Representatives in the Congress of the United States. Mr. THYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. In a moment. In those files, I imagine, as the Sena- tor from Massachusetts [Mr. SaLTton- STALL] has pointed out, there will be some information we know we cannot make stand up in a public hearing or in a pub- lic courtroom. I think it is only fair that when we reach the point of establishing the guilt or innocence of a person the committee should be required to use only evidence that can stand up. Evidence which cannot be presented in an open hearing should not be used by the com- mittee to convict a person by finding that he in fact is a traitor or is disloyal if he has not had an opportunity to test such evidence by proper cross-examination and rebuttal. That is all I am saying. To me, it is such a simple and precious right that I am at a loss to understand why a fight has to be made for this prin- ciple. It is so obvious, so necessary, in protecting the rights of all American citizens, that I think we should unani- mously say to the Foreign Relations Committee, “Of course, you can look into what the files show, but when you come to charging Mr. X or Mr. Y with treason or disloyalty to the Government, you must bring out into the open the evi- dence supporting the charge and permit the accused to present relevant evidence in answer, and also to be cross-exam- ined. I now yield to the Senator from Min- nesota. Mr. THYE. I share the same convice tion the able Senator from Oregon holds as to the stage of the case in which a person is brought before the committee to answer questions or to be cross-exam- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE ined. I share the conviction that that part of it might well be public. But when it comes to the committee’s exam- ining the records, the case history of a person—the case history which is nat- urally on file within the Federal agency— is it the Senator's contention that that stage of the examination should be pub- lic? If it is the Senator’s contention that that stage of the committee’s action should be public, then I cannot concur with him, because the committee would have to examine a great number of case histories in order to determine whether there was any legal reason to suspect the loyalty of the individual. If it was made public it could do irreparable in- jury. But once the committee has reached the conviction that a certain person is disloyal, then it is important that not even a half-page of the file should be removed, because that would leave a question in the minds of the in- vestigating committee as to the contents of the file. I served on an investigating committee for two terms, and I know the question which was left in our minds when it was found that a serial number had been tampered with. So, for that reason, I say that if the files are made available to the committee, without any question as to whether any part of any document may be missing, the committee can go into executive session, and !f it finds that the accused person is disloyal, it might cross-examine him in a public hearing. Then the public would have an opportunity to know his answers in the exact manner in which they are given, rather than in the manner in which they might be conveyed by someone who thought he was doing an excellent job of eavesdropping. Mr. MORSE. It is the intention of the junior Senator from Oregon that the so- called preliminary part of the investiga- tion shall be conducted in executive ses- sion. When the committee reaches the point in a given case where it believes probable cause exists for charging an individual with disloyalty to his Govern- ment, then the hearing must proceed in public and the committee must come for- ward in that public hearing with such evidence as it wishes to advance on which to base its finding of disloyalty. Mr. THYE. I thank the Senator. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I should like to invite the Senator’s attention to this point, particularly in view of his col- loquy with the Senator from New York (Mr. Lenman]. As I understand the suggested amendment of the Senator from New York, it goes far beyond the scope of the resolution submitted by the majority leader. I do not understand that this body, either through a recom- mendation of its committee, or through a vote in the body, has a right to dis- charge an employee of the executive de- partment. Mr. MORSE. It has a right to recom- mend discharge on the ground of dis- loyalty. Mr. SALTONSTALL. It has a right to make recommendations. Mr. MORSE. Yes. I am sure that the Senator would not question the fact FEBRUARY 22 that a recommendation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Mr. X is guilty of disloyalty would constitute, in fact, a finding that he is disloyal, Mr. SALTONSTALL. As I read the resolution, I would not say the commit- tee would necessarily have to state names if it did not want to. I bring this up because I listened to what the Senator from New York said, and I do not agree at all with the language suggested by him, and I hoped that the Senator from Oregon would not agree, because I think it goes far beyond the scope of the reso- lution. Mr. MORSE. I think the language of my amendment, with the explanation I have made as to what I mean by legal hearing, is adequate and will safeguard the particular principle for which I am arguing. If the very serious charges made by the Senator from Wisconsin are substantiated, he has rendered a great service to the country, because if there are disloyal persons in the State Depart- ment, let us get them out of there. But I want to say to my good friend from Massachusetts that I do not see how we can proceed under this resolution, in view of the question which has been raised across the country as to the possible ex- tent of disloyalty within the Govern- ment, without dealing with specific cases and giving full public hearings to deter- mine whether the accused persons are disloyal. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one more ques- tion? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. If my memory serves me correctly, the Senator from New York used the words “charges against the individual.” I do not under- stand that this resolution necessarily makes any charge against any one indi- vidual, X, Y, or Z. It is to authorize a full and complete study and investiga- tion as to whether persons who are dis- Joyal to the United States are employed by the Government. Mr. MORSE. My amendment refers to charges. Mr SALTONSTALL. ‘The Senator’s amendment refers to hearings conducted for the purpose of taking evidence and testimony. Mr. MORSE. Based on charges. Mr. SALTONSTALL. On_ charges against any individual. Mr. MORSE. Until the charges are made against some particular person we shall not be presented with the problem of taking evidence and testimony in the type of hearings about which I have been speaking. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Does the Sen- ator agree with me that the committee can make its study and recommendations without specific charges against any person? Mr. MORSE. I say, for hypothetical purposes, only, it would be possible for the committee to meet some afternoon and listen to the Senator from Wiscon- sin (Mr. McCarty]. I am sure the Senator will not read into this anything I do not intend. After listening to him the committee could vote unanimously to drop any further investigation. That is hypothetically possible. I do not think
1950 it is very probable, but it is hypotheti- cally possible. Of course, the adoption of the resolution does not mean that the committee will necessarily get to the stage of making charges of disloyalty against particular persons. It is pos- sible that the committee might find in executive session that there is no basis in fact or any probable cause that would justify a charge against an individual. But once the committee reaches the point of charging a person with disloy- alty, believe me, I want that person to be heard in public, and I want him to have the right to be heard in public. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY. I should like to ask one question, which possibly may have been answered by the Senator in his last statement. As the Senator knows, Mon- day night I read from the recommenda- tions made by the Security Division of the State Department that certain indi- viduals should be discharged because of their communistic connections. I showed that those individuals were still on the State Department rolls, and that they were cleared for top-secret material after the Security Agency said, ‘'These people have communistic connections.” I made the statement that a sizable number of men in the State Department are disloyal to this Nation, At that time the Senator from Illinois demanded that I make the names public on the floor of the Scnate. The Senate will recall that I said I would not do that unless it was the Judgment of the Senate that I should, for the reason that further investigation by the committee might possibly clear some of the individuals. At that time I said I would not make their names public unless the Senate so desired, So that the Senate will know what the resolution does in that respect, I should like to ask the Senator whether or not it would require that at the initial hear- ing these names are to be made public; and I hope I shall be invited by the com- mittec to come and give them the infor- mation I have, and glve them the names. Of course, 1t 1s of no personal concern to me; I do not care, personally, whether the Senate says “Yes” or “No.” Mr. MORSE. The answer 1s “No.” Mr. McCARTHY. I thank the Sena- tor. Mr. MORSE. I should hke to supple- ment my answer by saying that in execu- tive session the committce will decide whether or not they think the material which the Senator from Wisconsin has filed establishes probable cause for bc- lieving that any particular individual should be charged with disloyalty. If 1t reaches a conclusion in the affirmative as to any individual, then at that point the hearing should be public, and at that point the Senator from Wisconsin would be invited to come to the hearing. If I were a member of the committee, at that point I would notify the Senator from Wisconsin to bring forth in public hear- ing the evidence and the material which he has. Mr. WHERRY. the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield, Mr. President, will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. WHERRY. I did’ not get an op- portunity to read the amendment, and I should like to be clear as to what the Senator meant when he said that open hearings would be held after the charges were made. Of course, all legal proceed- ings would be in the open. After an in- dictment is found against anyone, there is a formal hearing. However, in order to make it a little clearer to me, I should like to ask whether prior to that time, in any investigation by the committee, it is the intention of the Senator to use the word “charges” against an individual? That stage would come after a formal charge was made against an individual, Mr. MORSE. After the committee has formally charged an individual with being disloyal, he must have a public hearing. Mr. WHERRY. Where there is a for- mal charge, an indictment against an individual, That is what the Senator has in mind, is it not? Mr. MORSE. Would the Senator wish to insert the word “formal” in the amendment? Mr. WHERRY. It seems tn me that would help tremendously. Mr. MORSE. ‘Formal charges”? I accept the Senator’s suggestion that the word “formal” before the word “charges” makes clear that under my amendment no public hearing need be held until the committee finds that there is a probable cause basis for formally charging some particular employee with disloyalty. Mr. WHERRY. If the Senator, in an- swer to the question, means what I am Saying, that it refers to a case after formal charges are made against a per- son and he is indicted, I cannot see that there is much difference between our relative positions. What occurs prior to that is what worries me. Mr. MORSE, Would the Senator prefer that we preface the statement with “after formal charges have been made’’? Mr. WHERRY. That would be better. I think it would help. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. AIKEN. The Senatur from Ne- braska asked almost the same question I had intended to ask the Senator from Oregon. If a person is accused of dis- loyaity and he 1s haled before the com- mittee and he does not desire to have his appearance before the committee made public, would the Senator require that the hearing before the committee be made public? Mr. MORSE. Believe me, if anyone in fact 1s disloyal, I certainly should hke to have it estabhshed in a public hear- ing. I will not give sanctuary, secrecy, or privacy to any person to hide his guilt. If the committee finds any person to be in fact disloyal, I would have the com- mittee drag him out in public. What the junior Senator from Oregon is fighting for is a public hearing procedure to prove the innocent innoccut and to prove the gullty guilty. Mr. AIKEN. Suppose the man {s in- nocent and his name has not been made public, and he says to the committee, “I can explain this to you, but Ido not want 2135 to talk about it to the whole world.” Would he have the right to be protected? Mr. MORSE. That illustrates one of the risks of citizenship in a free coun- try. After all, a person must be ready and willing to prove his innocence, too. If a committee of the Senate really be- lieves that probable cause exists for lev- eling a formal charge against an indi- vidual, he must assume the risk as a citizen of establishing his innocence. I do not believe the committee should have the discretion in that instance of saying, “We are going to protect you in a secret hearing, and unless we become satisfied through secret hearing that you are dis- loyal, we will not say anything about it publicly,” Mr. AIKEN. My question assumed that the man was completely innocent. Mr. MORSE. That would be estab- lished in the public hearing. Mr. AIKEN. After an accusation is made against a person and it is spread all over the United States, he is seriously injured, even though he may be proved innocent later. Mr. MORSE. ‘The formal charge pre- sumably is not going to be made, we have a right to presume, unless the commit- tee is acting on the basis of probable cause. If the committee says, “We think there is probable cause to believe that Mr. X is disloyal,” I think Mr. X should be tried in public. Mr. AIKEN. May we not also assume that the guilt or innocence of a person would not be determined before the com- mittee at all? Mr. MORSE. I think it would be de. termined at the hearing. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, if the Senator from Oregon will yield for a question or two, I shall ask him to clear up my understanding of his position. I may say at the outset that the question of the Bill of Rights is not involved in the resolution, though, of course, I find myself in agreement with the Senator’s statement that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happi- ness without due and proper indictment and trial. I do not wish to argue that point with the Senator at the moment. He has made his position clear. I do not believe the question is at all involved in the resolution we are discussing. I believe I am in general agreement with most of the Senator's views, I may be in thorough sgreement with all of them. However, there are various grades of elther guilt or suspicion which are in- volved. The public interest is involved Sometimes it is in the public interest to make things public. Sometimes it is definitely to the public interest to re- frain from making things public. I should like to ask the Senator this question, if he cares to express his view on it: Let us assume that the Senator from Wisconsin |Mr. McCartuy] makes the allegation that Mr. X is strongly suspected of being subversive, and let us assume he works in the State De- partment. I take it from what the Senator from Oregon has said that he
2136 believes that the committee, if the reso- lution is adopted, should look into the background of Mr. X, and that the committee could do that. Mr. MORSE. The answer is “Yes.” Mr, HICKENLOOPER. And_ the committee could do that in executive session. Mr. MORSE. The answer ts “Yes.” Mr, HICKENLOOPER. Let us assume, further, that the Investigative file on Mr. X did not completely prove, with such evidence as could be sustained at a trial, that Mr. X was in fact subversive. How- ever, let us suppose that the file strongly indicated that he was sympathetic with subversive activities, that he was in inti- mate association with known subversive persons, and that he had expressed him- self from time to time as being sympa- thetic with subversive activities and un- sympathetic with American ideals, but that there was no proof of criminality on his part, except as he thought and as he acted. Let us assume that the com- mittee came to the full conclusion that Mr. X was a dangerous person because of his general tendencies and his asso- ciations and his known contacts; that therefore he was a dangerous person to be trusted with top-secret material, for instance, in the State Department. To go a little further—— Mr. MORSE. If I may interrupt the Senator, I do not wish to interfere with his trial of the case, as we say, but the Senator should have my answer at this point. Then he may supplement his statement. The Senator is now talking about pass- ing judgment on the loyalty or disloy- alty of Mr. X. Whether it be done by subpena or otherwise, at that point I would bring him into the public hear- ing and establish on the public record that there was a basis for the suspicion that he was not the type of person who ought to be working in the State De- partment. I think he has that much coming to him. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I am talking about the province of an investigative committee of this body. Let us suppose we had gone that far. Let us suppose that the committee said, “There is seri- ous cause for suspicion. We cannot prove everything in this file, but there is a great deal of smoke here that is bad, and we must now consider the public interest.” Should this man con- tinue on or should he be removed from this position of confidence and trust? Therefore we shall now say, either to the State Department or to this man him- self, “Here is this strong suspicion. Here are the facts about which we make up our minds. We have come to the con- clusion that the best interests of the pub- lic would be for you to be separated from access, if you please, to highly secret information.” Suppose that man said one of two things. Suppose he said, “All right, I will quit.” Mr. MORSE. Common sense tells me that under those circumstances, if that is his position, the case should be dropped. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. That is ex- actly what I wanted to find out from the Senatvr. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. MORSE, ‘Drop the case right there. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Because I can envision any number of cases, in fact I have knowledge of a number of cases, where that exact situation exists. Mr. MORSE. That is what we call, as the Senator knows, “copping a plea.” We very frequently present evidence in a criminal case in a hearing before a grand jury or before a prosecutor of one crime, and the defendant says, “I think this is hot enough, so I will plead guilty to a lesser degree of the same crime.” Thus we find prosecutors accepting a plea of guilty to simple larceny instead of grand larceny when they think it is a fair dis- position of the case or when they are not too sure that their evidence will convict of the greater crime. In the Senator’s hypothetical if the employee says in effect to the committee, “I want to drop this whole thing by resigning my job,” and the committee decides that such a solution to the case would be a satisfac- tory one without a public hearing, there is nothing about’ my resolution which would prevent the committee from han- dling the case that way. But if the em- ployee denies the charges of disloyalty I think he should be given a public hearing for reply. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Suppose he is permitted to resign after he is consulted. Now, suppose a case of this kind: Sup- pose there was a very suspicious situa- tion, and the head of the State Depart- ment, or his authorized representative, was called in by the committee, still in executive session. The man’s name has never been mentioned. The case has never been brought out publicly. Sup- pose the committee says to the Secre- tary or his duly authorized deputy, “Here is the way we look at this matter. We do not know for sure whether this man is guilty of actual subversive acts or not, but the record is bad. The opportunity is there. His whole history is not good. We think perhaps you ought to get rid of this man administratively just for the good of the service. Now, if you want us to, we can go further, but if you want to get rid of him administratively we do not see enough here to go to a formal trial and charge but we think the over- riding best interests of the country would indicate that he ought to separate himself from the service.” Would the Senator think that that would be unmoral or unfair? Mr. MORSE. At that point I may say that the individual's rights come into the picture. He may be entirely inno- cent. It may be a great injustice to him to discharge him on the evidence which was before the committee in executive session. I think he is entitled to the chance to answer that evidence in a public hearing. I do not know how we are going to protect individual rights in any other way. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I understand. Let us go another step. Let us assume that in the file there is proof positive of subversive acts on the part of an indi- vidual—and I will say to the Senator that I know of cases where this exact circumstance has existed in the past— there is proof positive not only in the FEBRUARY 22 file but the proof can be produced of the fact that the individual has committed subversive acts which are traitorous, in the delivery of highly secret information. A public trial, however, cannot be had under the theory which has been pur- sued. A public trial cannot be had of this individual because to produce the evidence which laid the basis for the subversive act would be to give away very vital secrets affecting the security of the United States of America. Now, in a case such as that, if it were the admin- istrative decision not to prosecute that individual at the moment because the evidence upon which he would have to be prosecuted could not be brought out into public light by reason of the public safety, would the Senator say that other means of separating that man from the service and other actions taken toward him would be justified, or would the Sen- ator advocate the trial of that man under any circumstances, when the production oz the evidence might be extremely dan- gerous to the safety and security of the United States? Perhaps that is a little complicated. Mr. MORSE. Oh, no. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. mean-—— Mr. MORSE. I know that argument is hypothetical. It is a good argument. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It is not an argument, I may say to the Senator. I am saying to him that there are in- stances where such a situation has ac- tually existed. Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Iowa knows of them; I do not; but I believe that if he knows of them we ought to proceed as far as we can to secure the kind of evidence which will stand up in @ public hearing so we can put such dis- loyal employees where they belong. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I will say to the Senator that I have made efforts in the past to do just that. Up to this time it has not been done. Mr. MORSE. I wish the Senator great success in his efforts. But let us take the Senator’s hypothetical. If he gives me an extreme case which meets all the tests of that hypothetical, and it is cor- rect to assume that the security of the country and the welfare of the people of the country would be put in jeopardy, if at that time formal charges were made against the individual, I would say, post- pone the charges temporarily until we can get into a position—— Mr. HICKENLOOPER. But—— Mr. MORSE. Wait a minute. Into such a position that we can move in on him. In the meantime I certainly would say to the Secretary of State and, in such an instance, to the President of the United States, “It is necessary in this case to use discretionary powers in order to prevent this person jeopardizing the security of the Nation until we can get the evidence on him that we know is available and pending our securing it.” But—— Mr. HICKENLOOPER. How about removing him from his job? Mr. MORSE. But, in my judgment, the case is so exceptional that when it comes to a matter of principle I would never vote in the Senate of the United States I do not
1950 against a public hearing for any indi- vidual against whom formal charges of disloyalty are made by the committee. Of course there can be concocted a hypo- thetical set of facts so extreme in nature that I would be the first, or at least I would Join with the Senator from Iowa in saying that in that particular hypo- thetical we must take extraordinary measures to protect the security of the Nation. In the case put in the hypo- thetical by the Senator from Iowa, I would agree that the Secretary of State should take the individual off his job or transfer him to a harmless one until all the evidence needed for a public hearing could be marshalled. I would not keep him on a job if I believed the security of the Nation was endangered by him to any degree whatsoever. However, I would bring him to public hearing just as soon as the evidence could be mar- shalled against him. Mr. LUCAS rose. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. If the Sena- tor wiil yield further—I did not intend to give him a strained case—— Mr. MORSE. But it is. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Or a hypo- thetical case. at. MORSE. But it is. By its own terms it is. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I beg the Senator's pardon. In my view it is not, because there are more than one, there today ere several cascs that meet those suppositions. So it is not a fantastic, imagined situation. Mr. MORSE. They are highly ex- treme cases. They certainly do not fall within the two-hundred-and-some cascs mentioned by the Senator from Wls- consin, and to which the committee is going to be devoting most of its atten- tion. Furthermore, let me say, the Senator having put a hypothetical to me, that I would not want to pass judgement on that hypothetical in terms of the facts the Senator from Iowa has in mind, because it is difficult for me as a lawyer to believe that in this country we are so weak from the standpoint of securing evidence on individuals that we cannot secure the evidence on the persons covered by the Senator’s hypothetical and establish guilt in a public hearing. I believe we can. I would delay the hearing in that case until the facts were marshalled. I would have the Secretary of State sus- pend him until the evidence is ready for hearing. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. But we have the evidence. Mr. MORSE. Then I think it should be brought out. Mr. LUCAS, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HICKENLOOPER. But the evi- dence was such as to justify, in the minds of certain persons, failure of prosecu- tion, because the evidence, if produced, would endanger the safety of the country. I thank the Senator from Oregon for having yielded to me, Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I yield first to the Senator from New York [Mr. Ives]. I promised him some time ago that I would yield to him. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. IVES. As the able Senator from Oregon will recall, the Senator from New York was at least somewhat appre- hensive yesterday regarding the amend- ment proposcd by the Senator from Oregon. However, by changing the verbiage, as the Senator from Oregon has indicated, the apprehension expressed by the Senator from New York has been somewhat removed. I understand the Senator from Oregon has modified his amendment even further, and in order that my understanding may be perfectly clear I should like to read the amend- ment as I now have it. Will the Senator from Orerfon kindly listen? Mr. MORSE. Iam listening although looking at this paper. The Senator may be surprised, but I heard everything he said. Mr. IVES. I read: After formal charges have been made by the committee against any individual all hearings conducted by the committee for the purpose of taking evidence and testimony on sich charges shall be public hearings. Is that what the Senator has in mind? Mr. MORSE. With the addition of two words, after the word “charges”, the words “of disloyalty.” After formal charges of disloyalty are made by the committee. I assume the resolution goes to the whole matter of charges of dis- loyalty. Mr. IVES. The Senator from New York is fully satisfied now, after the explanation made by the Senator from Oregon Mr. MORSE, The Senator from New York is very kind. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. McCARTHY, and Mr. SALTONSTALL addressed the Chair. ‘lhe PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hco.uianp in the chair). Does the Sen- ator from Oregon yield. and if so, to whom? Mr MORSE. 1 promised the Senator from Illinois I would yield to him. Then after that I shall be glad to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr LUCAS. I am Satisfied that the Senator’s amendment will do exactly what we all want to have done. How- ever, the Senator from Massachusctts {Mr. SaLTonsTaLL] has a_ substitute which I wish the Senator from Oregon would examine. The substitute language secms to me to clear up all the complica- tions involved. I think the effect of the amendment would be perhaps a little different from what the Senator from Oregon interprets it, even with the modi- fication made by him. I want to accept the amendment of the Senator from Oregon if he will accept the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, or I will accept the amendment of the Sen- ator from Oregon, as modified. I want to have the argument settled. Mr. MORSE. I do also. Mr. President, the suggested modifica- tion of my amendment, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts would make it read as follows, and this is to follow the present printing of the resolution: And if said recommendations are to include charges of disloyalty against any individual, then the committee before making said rec- ommendations shall give said individual open 2137 hearings for the purpose of taking evidence or testimony on said charges. Mr. President, I always try to be a good horse trader, I sometimes get licked in my trades, but if the language offered by the Senator from Massachusetts is not identical with the meaning and intent of the language of my amendment then I do not understand the King’s English. If the suggested modification will get more votes for my amendment, I am per- fectly willing to accept it; and I do accept it. However, I wish it to be understood that the modifying languague of the Senator from Massachusetts, if it is ac- cepted, means that after the committee reaches the point of presenting charges against the loyalty of a particular person, at that point the committee will go into an open hearing in taking testimony and evidence on those charges. If that is the meaning—and I am sure it is the mean- ing of the Senator from Massachusetts {Mr. SALTONSTALL]—I accept with pleas- ure and appreciation the language of- fered by my good friend, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], Mr, FERGUSON and Mr, BREWSTER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HoL- LAND in the chair). Does the Senator from Oregon yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. MORSE. I yield first to the Sena- tor from Michigan, who first requested recognition; and thereafter I shall yield to the Senator from Maine. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, be- fore the Senator from Oregon accepts the amendment of the Senator from Massa- chusetts, I should like to have an ex- planation of one item, if the Senator will yield Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr FERGUSON I wish to refer to one statement the Senator from Oregon made in answer to the distinguished Sen- ator from Iowa, namely, that if a person is called in, given an opportunity to re- sign, and he does resign, that should end the matter. I take it, then, that, under the resolution, the Senate and the people would never hear of that particular case. Is that. correct? Mr. MORSE. The Senator should not forget that the hypothetical, in connec- tion with the question propounded to me, was that the committee was not satisfied that it had sufficient evidence to prove the disloyalty of the person. I answered a previous hypothetical question by saying that if the committee is satisfied that it has evidence of the disloyalty of anyone who is serving in the Government, the committee will owe it to the American people, in my judg- ment, to call that person before it in open hearing and establish the evidence. Mr. FERGUSON. That is what I wanted to establish. Mr. MORSE. I answered that in my reply to a specific hypothetical question which raised those assumed facts. Mr. FERGUSON. And a mere resig- nation would not end it. Is that correct? Mr. MORSE. That is right. If I were a@ member of the Foreign Relations Come mittee in conducting this investigation, and if I and a majority of my colleagues became satisfied that Mr. X was guilty of disloyalty, he could not bargain with
2138 me in executive session; he could not re- sign his job and thus go scot free. I would insist upon establishing his disloy- alty in open hearing. Until we do that, I do not think we can get very far in satisfying the puzzlement and the suspicion of the American peo- ple today as to what is going on, in con- nection with all the talk of disloyalty among Government employees. Today the American people are greatly confused about the matter. If there is any evi- dence in regard to any of these persons, they should be brought before a public hearing and the evidence should be es- tablished there. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY. I temporarily left the floor; and when I returned, the Sena- tor from Oregon was discussing with the Senator from Iowa some hypotheti- cal questions in regard to disloyalty. I should like to ask the Senator a question, which may not be completely apropos of what we are discussing, but I think it is worth considering at this point. Let us consider some of the ac- tual cases which were covered the other evening here in the Senate. Let us con- sider the case of an individual who has been investigated by the investizative agency of the State Department, and thereafter the agency placed in the file a statement that that man fis a bad se- curity risk, and the agency showed his connections with members of an espi- onage ring, and showed the number of Communist-front organizations to which he belonged; and subsequently the De- partment said, ‘““We will give this man top-secret clearance.” Incidentally, Mr. President, let me say that I am basing this question on mate- rial taken from the records; this is not simply a matter of conjecture. Let us asSume that man’s case was presented to the committee in executive session, and let us assume that the com- mittee felt that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he actually joined the Communist Party on a certain date. Assume that the committce believed the investigative agency of the State De- partment was correct, however, when it said the man was a bad security risk and should be gotten out of the Government. Is it the Senator's thought that that should never be made public, but that it should be hidden in the files of the com- mittee; or does the Senator believe the public is entitled to know that John Jones, for instance, is still enjoying top- secret clearance, despite all his Com- munist connections? Mr. MORSE. I would say that such facts should be brought out. They should be spread on a public record in open hearing. The hypothetical_— Mr. McCARTHY. This is an actual case. Mr. MORSE. The question answers itself. I think that evidence should be brought out in a public hearing, and the associations and the conduct and the ac- tions of the individual which spell, in ac- cordance with the Senator’s own prem- ises, a danger to the security of the Nation, should be spread on the public record. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. McCARTHY. Even though the committee does not feel that it can definitely prove that he joined the Com- munist Party on a certain date? Mr. MORSE. I do not think proof of actual membership in the Communist Party is essential to proof of disloyalty to our form of government. Mr. McCARTHY. I thank and heart- fly agree with the Senator from Oregon. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a question? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mi. BREWSTER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield to me—— Mr. MORSE. I beg the pardon of the Senator from Maine; I owe him an apology, for I previously promised to yield next to him. However, if the Sen- ator will permit, I shall yicld briefly to the Senator from Nebraska, at this point. Mr. BREWSTER Certainly. Mr. WHERRY. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, a while ago, when the Senator from Massachusetis had a col- loquy with the Senator from Oregon, I suggested that if he would use the words “formal charges”—— Mr. MORSE. I agreed to that sug- gestion, and I think it has been ac- cepted. Mr. SALTONSTALL., Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me at this point? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I wrote in the woid “formal.” and I told the Senator from Oregon we could accept it. Mr. WHERRY. Who accepted it? Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Texas [Mr. CONNALLY], chairman of the Foreisn Relations Committee, suggested it, I think; so he has accepted it along with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL], and the majority leader [Mr. Lucas}. Mr. WHERRY. Very well. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me now? Mr. MORSE I yield, gladly. Mr BREWSTER. A question of pro- cedure is always developed in congres- sional investigations. Customarily they are preceded, as the Senator indicated, by getting the evidence from records or from various other sources, and the com- mittee examines the evidence. At some point during the course of that pro- cedure, following the analogy of the grand jury and the trial jury, congres- sional committees very frequently have asked the person who 1s under sus- Picion to come before them in executive session and answer questions. I am very much interested to know the attitude of the Senator in regard to that point. As a matter of fact, two men are now in prison because of their betrayal of their Government, and they were con- victed primarily because of the falsifica- tion of their replies at such an exami- nation. What is the view of the Senator from Oregon as to procedure of that char- acter? Mr. MORSE. In my opinion, in that particular case the individual should have the right to say, “I will appear in a public hearing and will answer charges brought against me.” FEBRUARY 22 Mr. BREWSTER. But if he elects to say that, instead of saying, “I do not care to come before an executive session of the committee and reply,” the Senator feels that he would be entitled to take that position. Is that correct? Mr. MORSE. I feel that he should have the right to be heard in public on that matter. Mr. BREWSTER. But the Senator would not criticize the committee if it did ask him in executive session for re- plies, if he saw fit to make them? Mr. MORSE. No. The Senator from Maine and I know what judgments we sometimes form when a man stands mute in the courtroom. When a man does that, we are suspect that he may be afraid to testify. I know how I would feel, as a member of the committee, if such a person re- fused to come before the committee and answer questions within the committee. I know what I would think under such circumstances. I would not have any hesitancy in holding him for a public hearing on a question as to his loyalty unless no evidence at all existed against him. Mr. BREWSTER. I am fearful that the phrase “formal charges” may rendcr the procedures extremely difficult. I think that has been the experience of committees which have proceeded in such matters in the past. Mr. MORSE. In what way? Mr. BREWSTER. I think the Senator appreciates that, aside from an im- peachment trial which we may conduct here, the committees of investigation are primarily, not for trial or conviction, but for Icgislative purposes. Mr. MORSE. But thai is not the im- mediate purpose of this resolution. Mr. BREWSTER I conceive that the only ground on which we can constitu- tionally justify it is from the standpoint of whether the safety of the Govern- ment is being endangered. That is our primary purpose. Mr. MORSE. Out of our findings in these cases, we may come to legislation; but our first and immediate concern is to ascertain whether there are disloyal persons in the Government. Mr. BREWSTER. That 1s an inciden- tal purpose of these investigations, but not the primary and the overridiny prol- lem. The overriding problem is whether the negligence of the exccutive depart- ments has been such that that sort of thing has been permitted to develop: and that sort of conclusion might come out of a very widespread inquiry. In fact, during the war that was continually the expcrience of the Truman investigating committee; and although in many in- stances individuals were found guilty, that was always incidental to the far broader problem of trying to bring home to the executive agencies their majority responsibility to see that things of that character did not develop. Mr. MORSE. I will not quarrel with that analysis, except I think it is per- fectly clear that we are moving into this matter as a result of the charges, brought by the Senator from Wisconsin, to the effect that there are a large number of disloyal persons ir the State Depart- ment. We want to find out whether
1950 those charges are true or false; and if they are true, I want to get rid of those Persons. Mr. BREWSTER. As to that, I think we could appropriately point out the contempt with which the original sug- gestion of these charges was treated by those high in executive authority; and even after the conclusion of an extended judicial hearing and court trial, the next to the highest official still insisted that he would not turn his back on the person who had been convicted. Certainly both those things, while per- haps they have little to do with the indi- vidual responsibility of the persons who have been referred to in the debate here by numbers, have a very great deal to do with our determination as to whether the public security is being adequately maintained; and that brings us to the auestion of whether we shall have the right to get the records from the execu- tive department. As I understand, the Senator from Oregon thinks that should be well within our powers, although the Senator from Illinois |Mr. Lucas], the majority leader, has apparently indi- cated scme doubt regarding that. Mr. MORSE. I think we have the duty, in protecting the security of the Nation, to get the records of any evidence that will help us in determining whether there are disloyal persons within the Government. Mr. MUNDT. Mtr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield to the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. MUNDT. I should tke to call a particular point to the attention of the Senator from Oregon, who 1s working toward a goal which I think is shared in common by virtually every other Mem- ber of the Senate, but which seems to be exceedingly hard to define in terms of an amendment. Mr. MORSE. It is not hard to adopt the principle. Mr. MUNDT. That is truc. If I understand the Senator’s purpose, it is solely to make sure that no one will be deprived of his job or be convicted of disloyalty or be accused publicly with- out being given an opportunity to make a public rejoinder. Is that correct? Mr. MORSE. That is correct. Mr. MUNDT. Certainly I concur 100 percent with that. It seems to mec the language suggested or offered by the junior Senator from New York [Mr. Ives] provides for that almost exactly. Let me point out what worries me about the present language of the pro- posal, as I understand it. As I under- stand it now, before a public hearing would be held at all, the committee would have to make a formal charge of dis- loyalty against the individual. Is that correct? Mr. MORSE. If the committee finds that probable cause exists for believing that Mr. X is disloyal to the Government, he ought to be given a chance to meet the charges. Mr. MUNDT. But would not that be done only after the committee has made a@ formal charge? Mr. MORSE. The committee is not going to bring a charge, unless it finds CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE there is a basis for making it. It is not going to act in a vacuum. Mr. MUNDT. No, but I think the amendment goes so far as to say that the committee must make a formal charge first, before there can be a pub- lic hearing. Mr. MORSE. All the amendment does is provide that in case the committee decides in executive session that prob- able cause exists for believing that Mr. X is disloyal the committee must convene a public hearing so that Mr. X can face the charges, hear the evidence against him, and defend himself in public in an- swer to the charges. Mr. MUNDT. Does not that place a heavy burden on the committee, requir- ing that its decision be made in execu- tive session prior to a gathering of all the evidence in an open session? I mean, the committcc almost has to arrive at a verdict, first Mr. MORSE. No. It is only a ques- tion of whether, as we lawyers would say, before going to trial—a question of whether there 1s sufficient evidence on which to go .o trial. It is a question of the existence of probable cause Mr. MUNDT. Put there again we come to the purpose we have in mind, with which I agree. The language it secms to me would have to be incor- porated, that the committee would have to make a charge before a formal hearime. Mr. MORSE. That is what a formal hearing involves. We do not go to a formal hearing unless we think there is enough evidence to establish at least a prima facie case against the accused. There would be no purpose in having a formal] hearing, if in the executive ses- sion the committee was satisficd there was no basis for goint ahead with the ecuse involving Mr. XX. It would be dropped. That would be the last that would be heard of it. But if the com- mittee were to say, “This case looks pretty bad, we had better find out what a full hearing will show as to the loyalty of Mr. X; we had better hold this fellow for a hearing,” then my amendment for the first time would become applicable. Mr. MUNDT. The Senator is a great deal more persuasive, a great deal more lucid, in his explanatory remarks, than in the amendment. I seem unable to get the two togcther. May we have the amendment read asain? Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the clerk read the amendment as modified by my good friend from Massachusetts? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment The LecIsLaTIVE CLERK. On line 6, be- fore the word “The”, it is proposed to insert the following: “All hearings con- ducted by the committee shall be public hearings, and, if said recommendations are to include formal charges of dis- loyalty against any individual, then the committec, before making said recom- mendations, shall give said individual open hearings for the purpose of taking evidence or testimony on said charges.” Mr. MUNDT. The amendment re- tains the original language, then, that all hearings are to be public, does it not? Mr. MORSE. I thought that language had been stricken, I may say to my good 2139 friend from Massachusetts. I do not think the clerk read the language sub- mitted by the Senator from Massachu- setts in modification of my language in just the form submitted by the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, that would place in the discretion of the accused the right to a public hearing, would it not? Is that what the Senator from Oregon understands? Mr. MORSE. No, that is not my un- derstanding of the language which was handed me by the Scnator from Massa- chusetts |Mr, SALTONSTALL]. There is some mistake in language as contained in the clerk’s copy. Mr. FERGUSON. That is the under- standing I have from what was read. Mr. MORSE. I agree with the Sen- ator from Michigan but the clerk has the wrong slip from which he is reading, The VICE PRESIDENT. Did the clerk read the right amendment? Mr. MORSE. He did not read the one I thought the Senator from Massa- chusetts showed me. Lect us get the original language as offered by the Sen- ator from Massachusetts in modification of my amendment. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts will hand to the clerk the original statement, which he will ask to have read. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secre- tary will read it again. The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 1, line 8, after the word “desirable”, it is proposed to strike out the period, insert a comma, and the following: “and if said recommendations are to include formal charges of disloyalty against any in- dividual, then the committee, before making said recommendations, shall give said individual open hearings for the purpose of taking evidence or testimony on said charges.” Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yield. Mr. MUNDT. That pretty well sub- stantiates the point I was trying to make. The only way in which public hearings will eventuate at all is after the commit- tee has made charges of disloyalty against an individual. Let me cite one “liberty” case as an example of how that would work. Let us take the case of Alger Hiss, a “liberty” case which we know something about. The Commit- tee on Un-American Activities, after first having heard in private or executive session the testimony of Whittaker Chambers, concluded that the evidence was substantial, and was sufficient to justify an open hearing. Chambers then testified in an open hearing. Alger Hiss then requested the right to be heard, and we heard him the next day. That would conform to the pattern, Iam sure, which the junior Scnator from Oregon has in mind. But had the committee of the House been in a position similar to the one in which the Senator’s amendment would place the Committee on Foreign Relations, at that stage of the game we certainly never would have concluded that there was substantial evidence, suf- ficient to launch a charge of disloyalty against Hiss. There would have been no public hearing. There would have been no disclosure, and no conviction,
2140 Mr. MORSE. I think all it means fs that the committee would not have com- pleted its investigation at that time. But I do not think the point has applica- tion to the resolution which is before the Senate. This committee is going to go ahead It. is going to listen to the Sena- tor from Wisconsin; it is going to look into whatever files may be submitted to the committee in order to decide whether it should proceed in a hearing on formal charges of disloyalty against X, Y, and Z, or whomever the committee might bring charges against. Mr. MUNDT. Under the terms of the amendment, the House committee would have been required to arrive at a verdict of disloyalty against Hiss before a public hearing was held. Mr. MORSE. It would have been a question of whether probable cause ex- isted for thinking there was sufficient smoke to justify their looking for the fire. Mr. MUNDT. It was the public hear- ing which disclosed the evidence. By virtue of the fact that it was a public hearing, it enabled the committee to ar- rive at {ts conclusion. The Senator’s amendment would require the Senate committee to reach the conclusion before having a public hearing. Mr. MORSE. I see what fs troubling the Senator. The resolution does not say that the Forcign Relations Commit- tee must make the finding, as a matter of fact, before a public hearing, that Mr. X is disloyal; not at all. Mr. MUNDT. Is it not required to so find before making recommendations with respect to the charge of disloyalty? Mr. MORSE. Not at all. The com- mittee has to be satisfied only of the ex- istence of probable cause, by reason of which any given accused ought to be given a public hearing at which to de- fend himself. That is all my amend- ment seeks to guarantee. Mr.MUNDT. Then I may have to re- quest the Senator to read the amend- ment again. It does not so state, as read by the clerk, unless my hearing of it was entirely erroneous. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, the point I attempted to make was that before any recommendations could be presented to the Senate, naming X, Y, and Z, a public hearing would have to be given them. In the case cited by the Senator from South Dakota, had the committee been convinced reasonably by the testimony of Mr. Chambers that further evidence should be taken on the subject, it could have proceeded further perhaps in executive session. When the committee reached the point where it thought recommendations should be made against Mr. Hiss, then, before making a recommendation, it would have had to hear Mr. Chambers’ evidence in public. The committee would have to have heard Mr. Hiss in public, and they would have had to have the whole thing aired in public, because of the charge against Hiss. That is what it means. Mr. MUNDT. The only difference be- tween us is, I want to give the commit- tee the right to conduct public hearings before arriving at a conclusion. Mr. MORSE. Oh, the committee has that right. Under the Legislative Re- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE organization Act, the committee has the right, on the face of the resolution, I may say, to proceed with no executive sessions at all, if they want to do that. They can proceed from the beginning with public hearings. Everything done by the com- mittee could be done in a public hearing, if the committee desired. There is noth- ing in my resolution to prohibit the com- mittee from having all its sessions in public. All we are saying is, when it comes to the stage where the commit- tee feels that probable cause exists for believing an individual to be disloyal, he must be given a chance to be heard in public. That is all the resolution as proposed to be amended says. After all, are we not now almost ectting to the point where we are of common mind as to the principle we are trying to pro- tect? The record we have made here this afternoon {fs itself an instruction to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee and his colleagues as to what our objective is. I submit the language offered by the Senator from Massachu- setts, as I have accepted it, carries out the principle. I do not think there is any danger that the committce is in any way going to be hamstrung in its pro- cedure, either before or after the public hearing in view of the prolonged and thorough discussion we have had here this afternoon. The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment offered by the Sen- ator from Oregon. Mr. HOLLAND. Mtr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. MORSE. I yicld the floor, but I shall be glad, in the Senator’s timc, to answer questions. Mr HOLLAND. I may say to the Sen- ator from Oregon I recall that when the Senator from Wisconsin was going into this matter the other night, he referred in his remarks to several employces of the State Department, who he stated were Foreign Service employces. I recall that in one casc he said a particular For- eign Service employee was stationed at Madrid. I am not sure but that the amendment as revised may probably take care of the point to which I refer, but it seems to me that in addition to the qucstion of providing for proper pro- tection of the rights of the individual, there is in connection with public hear- ings always the question of safeguarding against the disclosure of improper mat- ters, from the standpoint of the national interest. I am asking the Senator from Oregon therefore whether he would mind relating what would be the course taken, in the event there should come to the attention of the Committee on Foreign Relations, through the Senator from Wisconsin, or otherwise, matters causing the committee to question the loyalty of a-Foreign Service officer in the Embassy or consulate at Madrid. What would be the course of the investi- gation? My purpose in asking is so that the REcorp may show clearly that the interests of the Government in its re- lations with friendly countries will be safeguarded. Mr. MORSE. If the committee de- cided that probable cause existed for believing the person to be disloyal, they would ask to have him brought into a FEBRUARY 22 public hearing and ask to have him re- turned to this country for that purpose. Why not? Mr. HOLLAND. I ask the Senator, Is there any machinery provided, with re- spect to questions which may be thought by the State Department to be of great importance to the Nation and to its re- lations with a friendly foreign power? Would the committee be free to go into such matters in executive session? Mr. MORSE. I have no doubt that under the able leadership of the Senator from Texas [Mr. CoNNALLY], the mat- ter could be worked out without in any way jeopardizing the interests of the State Department or the Foreign Service of the United States. But if we got to the point—I do not want any doubt to exist as to where I would stand on this final step—-if we got to the point where the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate actually believed it had found someone belonging to the Foreign Of- fice of the State Department, in Madrid or elsewhere, who was disloyal, the com- mittee should do what it could, within its jurisdiction, to bring that person to a public hearing. If it were discovered that the committee did not have the power to do that, the publicity of that fact alone, I think, would force the ad- ministration to take a neccessary course of action which would protect the Amer- ican people against the wrongdoings of such a person. Mr. HOLLAND If the Senator will yield for one further question—— Mr. MORSE I pield. Mr HOLLAND. Am I to understand that regardless of how important the friendly relations between our country and another power might be, in order to fo into such matters that person would have to be brought into a public hear- ing and could not be brought into a private or executive session? Mr. MORSE. Insofar as the rights of the individual are concerned in respect to a charge of disloyalty against him I think he should be given a public hear- ing. I believe, however, the Forcign Re- lations Committee would handle the other problems which are inherent in the Senator’s question, without a pub- lic hearing. But so far as the rights of the ifdividual are concerned, it makes no difference to me whether he works in a foreign office, in the State Department. or works somewhere as a janitor, he 1s still an American, and is entitled to all the guaranties of a public hearing for which I have been fighting all afternoon Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, MORSE. I was about to yield the floor, but T shall yield for a question. Mr. WHERRY. In the colloquy be- tween the junior Senator from South Dakota [Mr. MunpT] and the junior Sen- ator from Oregon, I understood the junior Senator from Oregon to say that the committee has a right to hold open hearings right up to the point of formal charges. Under the Reorgamazation Act, I understand it has the right to hold either closed or open hearings. Does not the resolution override and supersede that? Mr MORSE. Ido not think the reso- lution or my amendment overrides the
1950 rights of the Foreign Relations Commit- tee under the Reorganization Act. The effect of the resolution, with my amend- ment in it, is to say to the Senate For- eign Relations Committee, “Whenever you reach the conclusion in your deliber- ation that probable cause exists for be- lieving that any particular employee its disloyal to our Government, the commit- tee shall then conduct a public hearing on the charges and evidence of disloyalty and give to the employee accused of dis- loyalty @ full opportunity to be heard and defend himself in a public hearing.” That is all the resolution, with my amendment, means. We should not overlook the fact that in this instance the Foreign Relations Committee is functioning as a special committee of the Senate, carrying out the mandates of this special resolution. There is nothing in the Reorganization Act that takes away from the Senate its right and pre- rogative to instruct one of its committees as to the type of procedure which should be followed in conducting an investiga- tion into the loyalty of Gavernment em- ployees. The Foreign Relations Com- mittee is a creature of the Senate, subject to the instructions of the Senate as a whole in regard to the procedures which are to be followed in carrying out such an investigation as is called for by this resolution. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion is on agreeing to the resolution as amended Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, I have three amendments which I shall send to the desk, and I wish to speak on them at this time. First, I wish to read the resolution without the last amendment which is going to be accepted by the majority Jeader: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, 1s authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether per- sons who are disloyal to the United States are employed by the Department of State. The committee shall report to the Senate at the earlicst practicable date the results of its investigation, together with such rec- ommendations as {tt may deem desirable. Mr. President, it will be noted that the resolution reads “who are disloyal to the United States are employed.” That is in the present tense and would mean as of the time of making the ex- amination. I have an amendment, to insert, on line 5, after the word “are”, the words “or have been.” The charges made by the distinguished Senator from Wiscon- sin indicated that some of these persons were leaving the Department or had left the Department, and that the investi- gation should be made as to those who were in the Department. So the lan- guage would be amended to read “or have been employed by the Department of State.” Will the Senator from Illinois accept such an amendment? Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. yield. XCVI——135 I shall be glad to CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LUCAS. Of course, that would cover 8 long period of time. Mr. FERGUSON. It will be within the discretion of the committee. The charges were made, and they are in the Recorp at the present time, as to certain persons. I think that is what the Senate wants to know about, and that is what the public wants to know about. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I hope the able majority leader will accept the amend- ment. The matter will still be under the control of the committee. But I want to say that it is my judgment that the people of the United States are not very happy about the statute of Hmitations which apparently runs under our law, in regard to disloyalty to the United States. In the Alger Hiss case, the statute had run, and the only thing for which he could be tried was perjury in answering questions as to whether he had turned over documents from the Government of the United States to an espionage ring. I do not think we should have a statute of limitations running in cases of disloyalty to the Government of the United States The committce will still have control over the situation, but, in my opinion, we should foreclose ourselves, because I cite to the able Senator from, IHinotfs the fact that it might happen that some- one had left the Department of State and had been disloyal during the period he had been there, perhaps had resigned, and is now in a position {n some other department and doing equal damage to the Nation which he purports to serve Mr. LUCAS Ido not have any par- ticular objection, Mr. President. It seems to me that the amendment might go back 25 or 30 years. Mr. FERGUSON. It would be merely in the discretion of the committee. Mr. LUCAS. It would be solely with- in the discretion of the committee as to how far back it should go. Mr. FERGUSON. The amendment would so authorize the committee. Mr. LUCAS. I shall modify my amendment in line with the suggestion of the Senator from Michigan. Mr. FERGUSON. The second amend- ment is to insert in line 5, after the word “State,” the words “or any other agency of the Government concerned with the intercourse of the United States with other nations.” The reason for that, Mr. President, {s that the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin indicated there were persons directly employed by the State Depart- ment who were disloyal to the United States and were transferred, or permit- ted to be transferred, or who removed themselves to some other agency which is directly connected with the relations of the United States with foreign nations, As I understand, the purpose of the in- vestigation ts to bring out the facts as to those persons who are disloyal to the United States and who have an oppor- tunity of harming the United States in its relations with other nations. 2141 Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. TOBEY. The Senator might add “whoever they may be and wherever they may be.” Mr. FERGUSON. I think that is in- cluded in the amendment. Mr. TOBEY. The Senator’s mind works along with my own to that extent, does it not? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. Mr. TOBEY. That is the desideratum, is it not? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. We have an amendment which merely says “or any other agency of the Gov- ernment concerned with the intercourse of the United States with other nations.” I wonder whether the distinguished Senator from Illinois would accept that amendment. Mr. McMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. MCMAHON. What other agency does the Senator have 1n mind as being encompassed by that definition? Mr. FERGUSON. I have in mind the officers of the Commerce Department which embrace men who are 1n the Di- vision of Export Control, whose activities are directly related to those of the State Department. The Departments work very closely together, and I think they have an over-all board. I would say that there would be certain services hav- ing to do with forcign matters. I do not know whether some of these are under the dircct control of the State Depart- ment or not. There is the matter of immigration, for instance. Mr. McMAHON. Does the Senator include such an agency as Mr. Hoffman's organization? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; where they deal directly with another nation The Senator’s committee for instance, has been conducting hearingson ECA. That organization deals directly with ther nations, jifst as the State Department does. It has an over-all or roving am- bassador. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. It seems to me that the Senator is branching out into every agency of Government. We started out originally with the charge of disloyalty in the State Department. Practically every so-called charge made by the Sen- ator from Wisconsin was leveled against persons in the State Department. I should like to say that if in the course of its investigation the Foreign Relations Committee should discover any ramifica- tions which would lead into another de- partment of the Government, they would certainly have the right, even without authority of the resolution, to investigate. It seems to me that adop- tion of the proposal would be adding an amendment which is not really needed. If this amendment were adopted, every agency of Government would be brought under the investigation. It was the idca of the Senator from Illinois and of othcr Senators on this side of the aisle, when
2142 we started the discussion of the investi- gation, that we should follow more or less the idea presented by the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCartHy], and confine the investigation to the State Department. As the majority leader, I assure the Senator that if the investi- gation to be conducted by the Foreign Relations Committee shows that the ex- amination leads into another depart- ment of the Government, certainly the members of the committee would not hesitate for a moment to go into that department. They would have the right to do that under the Reorganization Act. Surely the members of the com- mittee would do it. However, I dislike very much to accept the amendment and place the burden upon the Foreign Re- lations Committee to investigate every department, so to speak. In other words, it would be a catch-all amendment which would give the committee the right to go fishing into every depart- ment of the Government. I do not be- liev2 that should b2 done. Mr. TCBEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON I yield. Mr. TOBEY. What I have to say bears on what has been sald by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Lucas] and by the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Fer- cuson]. The Senste Committee on In- terstate and Foreign Commerce at its meeting this morning had before it a resolution, proposed by the Senator from Nevada {Mr Matonel, to investi- gate a man connected with the Com- merce Department. Mr. FERGUSON Mr Lor? Mr. TOEEY. Mr. Lee He is with the Export Division of the Commerce De- partment. Leeishis presentname His name used to be of Russian origin. I believe he was born in Russia. He is in charge of exports in the Department of Commerce. The committee voted unani- mously to make an investigation, and we asked for an appropriation of $10,000 in order to conduct the irvestigation. That is an instance of one standing com- mittee which is going ahead on its own initiative on one phase of a subject which comes within its purview. Mr. LUCAS It is perfectly within the province of the committce to do that. It seems to me that the amendment should not be adopted, because it would give the Foreign Relations Committee the exclusive power to investigate all branches of the Government. As in the case of the Department of Commerce, if the amendment were adopted, the in- vestigation could be broadened to in- clude other departments. Such investi- gations should perhaps be made by other committees The charges which have been leveled by the Senator from Wis- consin deal strictly with the State De- partment, and I should like to confine the investigation of charges to the State Department. Mr. McCARTHY,. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yileid. Mr. McCARTHY. The Senator will recall that on Monday night, when I cited cases for the Rrecorp, I noted that some of the individuals had left the State Department, and are now in other CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE branches of the Government. If the committee finds that John Jones, for ex- ample, who had been in the State De- partment up to 6 months ago, with top- secret clearance, is now in some other department of the Government, in order to do a thorough job the committee should have the right to follow him, to find out whether he was a part of an esplonage ring. Unless we broaden the scope of the resolution, I believe the hands of the committee will be too thoroughly tied. Mr. LUCAS. Mr President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. The amendment offered by the able Senator from Michigan, which was accepted by the Senator from Tilinois, covers the situation of any indi- vidual who has ever been connected with the State Department and who has gone to some other agency. The committee can go after such a person under the amendment which has just been ac- cepted. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND, I agree with the Statement just made by the majority Jeader. I do not know whether the Sen- ator from Wisconsin was in the Cham- ber at the time, but I believe that the amendment which had been offered just prior té the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan covered the point which the Senator from Wisconsin raises. Any person who in the past has been connected with the State Depart- ment and who has moved into some other agency is now covered under the terms of the amendment which has al- ready been accepted. Mr. McCARTHY. When I left the Chamber about 3 minutes ago the Senate was dchating the amendment. Do TI un- derstand the amendment has been accepted? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. Mr. Presi- dent, this is what was brought out by the distinguished Senator from Oregon. This is in effect new authority being given to the Committee on Foreign Rela- tions. The authority given by the rule in general is an authority which the committee could have exercised without any resolution of this body. But it is now proposed that we confer upon the committee certain authority which it may not have under the general rule. Let me read the matters which would come within the province of the com- mittee under the rules laid down without the pending resolution. I read from page 33 of the Senate Manual: (1) Committee on Foreign Relations, to consist of 13 Senators, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects’ 1. Relations of the United States with for- eign nations generally. 2. Treaties. 3. Establishment of boundary lines be- tween the United States and foreign nations. 4. Protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation. 5. Neutrality. 6. International gresses. 7. The Amerigan National Red Cross, conferences and con- FEBRUARY 22 8. Intervention abroad and declarations of war 9. Measures relating to the diplomatic service. 10 Acquisition of land and buildings for embassies and legations in foreign countries. 11. Measures to foster commercial inter- course with foreign nations and to safeguard American business interests abroad. 12. United Nations Organization and in- ternational financial and monetary organi- zations, 13. Foreign Icans Mr. President, the amendment pro- posed is designed to give the committee jurisdiction of related matters which would be under agencies of Government other than the State Department con- cerned with intercourse with foreign nations. It concerns itself with those who are working for agencies which could give vital assistance and aid to foreign countries. It is not the purpose of the amendment at all to cover local domestic agencies; it relates only to those dealing with foreign nations. I am satisfied that the Senate and the pubhc are interested in knowing about those who may be disloyal in the State Department. There is likewise a desire for knowledge as to whether there is any disloyalty in any other department of the Government which deals directly with foreign nations. It is in order that we may satisfy the public once and for all, that the amendment is offered. I think that both the Democratic and the Republican sides of the Senate should be interested in having it brought out that we do have or do not have disloyalty among those who are dealing directly with foreign nations. I hope that the Senate will later adopt the amendment. Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. Fresidcnt: Mr. FERGUSON I yield. Mr. CONNALLY. No; I desire the floor in my own right. Mr. FERGUSON. I have not con- cluded. I began by saying that I had three amendments to present. The last and final amendment is the one which I wish to have voted on first, and I offer it 1n behalf of myself and the junior Senator from Nebraska |Mr. WHERRY]}. It is, on hne 8, after the period, to insert the following: In the conduct of this study and investi- gation the committee is directed to procure, by subpena, and cxamine the complete loyalty and employment files and records of all the Government employees in the De- partment of State and such other agencies against whom charges have been heard. Mr. President, I think it is vital that the Senate go on record as being of the opinion that the only way the record can be made complete for the people of the United States and for their representa- tives in the Senate, is that the files of the departments relating to the loyalty of those persons who are to be investigated should be turned over to the committee. When the junior Senator from Michi- gan served upon the War Investigating Committee, the now President of the United States was the chairman of that committee and on two occasions it was necessary that the chairman of the com- mittee issue subpenas to the Attorney General of the United States, who had refused to give up certain papers and
1950 records to the committee. As soon as he was subpenaed, the Attorney General of the United States delivered those papers to the investigating committee. As I have said, this language is a direc- tion to the committee by the Senate of the United States which represents the public in general. It, in effect, says to the committee that the Senate is of the opin- ion that it should speak out and say that the departments should turn over to the committee all the records and files needed in order that a complete investi- gation can be made. If the committee ever undertakes to make an investiga- tion of the matter and does not subpena the records and the files of every depart- ment of Government, I say that then the Senate of the United States will not be satisfied and the public will not be satis- fied, because there can be no complete investigation made unless all the files are turned over to the committee. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I will yield in a moment. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I believe the Senator’s statement may be misunder- stood. The Senator said the investiga- tion could not be complete unless the committee subpenaed all the files of all the departments of Government, which is a pretty broad statement. Mr. FERGUSON. The amendment provides: The complete loyalty and employment files and records of all the Government em- ployees in the Department of State and such other agencies— And so forth. Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I wanted to clear up that point. I thank the Senator. Mr. McCARTHY and Mr. WHERRY rose. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. FERGUSON. In a moment I will yield first to the Senator from Wisconsin. The Senator from Wisconsin indicated that he was reading into the Recorp from the files of the State Department charges of disloyalty against persons who were employed by the Government. If the files of the State Department cannot be secured, then no effective investiga- tion of the charges made by the junior Senator from Wisconsin can be made by the committee. I now yield to Wisconsin. Mr. McCARTHY. I may say to the Senator that I believe that unless the committee has the power and exercises the power to subpena the files of all those individuals who are suspected of com- munistic activities, then the investiga- tion will be completely useless, it will be ® complete farce, and nothing but a whitewash. The only way we can have an investigation of any value whatsoever is to say to the President, “We want to examine those files. We want to see why you are giving top secret clearance to men who have been named by your own security agencies as Communists. We want to find out why you are retaining on Federal pay rolls men who have been the Senator from CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE listed by the top investigative agencies as members of espionage rings.” Unless we secure those files there is no use of even starting the investigation. Mr. YY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the Sena- tor from Nebraska. Mr. WHERRY. It will be recalled that last night the junior Senator from Ne- braska made certain statements respect- ing whether a standing committee now has the power to subpena the very rec- ords the distinguished Senator from Michigan is speaking of. At that time I made a parliamentary inquiry. My in- quiry was whether a standing committee was given such a power of subpena under section 134 of the Reorganization Act. It is my understanding that the junior Senator from Michigan states that sec- tion 134 of the Reorganization Act au- thorizes each standing committee to re- quire by subpena, or otherwise, the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such _ correspondence, books, papers, and documents, and to take testimony, and so forth. Even though section 134 of the Reorganization Act gives the committee power of sub- pena, as I have stated, the question arises whether the committee would choose to exercise the power. The Senator, by his amendment, would instruct the members of the Senate committee to procure by subpena the files in connection with cases in which charges are made. Is that correct? Mr. FERGUSON. I think the Senator has stated it correctly. Mr. WHERRY. I join with the Sena- tor in what he proposes to do by his amendment. The committee is author- ized, by section 134 of the Reorganiza- tion Act, to procure documents by sub- pena. The act does not require a committee to exercise that power. There- fore, I feel that if there is to be an ex- haustive research into and investigation of the cases which have been mentioned the Senate should instruct the committee to procure the files in connection with the cases. I belicve that to be a very vital point. When, last night, that point was under discussion, and when I made inquiry about the matter, I thought the action we now Seek to take would be taken un- der the provisions of the Reorganization Act. It is now my opinion that it is very doubtful whether that can be done. If there is to be an investigation, Mr. Pres- ident, and all Senators seem to be willing to go along with the idea that an investi- gation should be had, I think the least we can do is to adop. the amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan. If it is unnecessary to take such action it will not do any harm if we take it. How- ever, such action would take care of the point I made last night. I said then I would not object to adoption of the reso- lution. I am just as anxious that it be adopted as is anyone else. I now ask the Senator from Michigan whether in his opinion it !s necessary to adopt his amendment, in order to pro- cure the files in question, rather than to rely upon the authority given under the Reorganization Act, which is merely an 2143 authorization which gives power, but the power might not be exercised. Mr. FERGUSON. My amendment if adopted, would be a directive to the com- mittee. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I most emphat- ically say to the Senator from Nebraska that I do not believe we should fool our- selves by what is now proposed to be done. I agree with the principle of what the Senator from Michigan is trying to do, but I call to his attention the fact that the La Follette-Monroney Act, in section 134, authorizes the committee to acquire by subpena or otherwise corre- spondence, books, papers, and docu- ments. Mr. WHERRY. Yes. I just read that. Mr. SALTONSTALL. But that does not mean papers of the United States Government in the executive depart- ment. We want to get those papers. I hope they will be given to us. But we cannot pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. When the committee issues a subpena directed to the Department of State, that does not necessarily mean that the committee is going to obtain those papers. We should not fool our- selves. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I might say to the Senator from Michigan that another reason why I think it is important that. at the very start the direction by the Senate of the United States be given to the committee to subpena the records, is so that we can find out whether the executive branch of the Government its going to comply with the subpena of the Senate of the United States. Mr. WHERRY. That is the point. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct, and it is vital. Mr. KNOWLAND. If it is not going to comply with the subpena of the United States Senate and give us records which are necessary in order for any kind of an effective job to be done, then the Congress of the United States, in the exercise of its responsibilities under the Constitution, may be forced to take such other steps as are necessary with the power it has under the Constitution. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. That is the second point I was going to bring out in my questioning of the Senator. I am whole- heartedly in agreement with the obser- vation made by the junior Senator from California. I wish to say to the dis- tinguished Senator from Michigan that when the question was asked last night I gave the impression that I felt that under the provisions of the Reorganiza- tion Act all the files necessary would be furnished to the committee. I am now of the opinion that they will not. I be- lieve the files may not be obtained unless the amendment proposed by the Senator from Michigan is agreed to. Under its provisions the files necessary to make a complete and exhaustive research could
2144 be obtained. Unless such files are ob- tained, no effective kind of investigation, such as the Senator from Oregon has been talking about, or that the majority leader has been talking about, can be made. An effective investigation can- not be made if we rely simply upon the authority granted under section 134 of the Reorganization Act. I submit that the Senate should give the amendment favorable consideration. I hope the majority leader will accept it. Adoption of the amendment will give us the kind of investigation which I belHeve to be mandatory if we are to clear up the records of the 57 persons involved. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. GEORGE. May I inquire of the Senator from Michigan again the exact language of his amendment on this point? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. In line 8, after the period, I proposed to inseri the fol- lowing: In the conduct of this study and investl- gation the committee is directed to procure, by subpena, and examine the complete loy- alty and employment files and records of all the Government employees in the Depart- ment of State and such cther agencies against whom charges have been heard. In other words, if there is a charge made to the committee against a certain person, it will be the duty of the commit- tee to direct a subpena to the depart- ment asking for the files and records of that employee. Mr. GEORGE. If the Senator will permit me, I will say I am in thorough agreement with the statement that a spe- cial committee is being set up. A stand- ing committee is being selected, but it is being charged with a specific duty and responsibility. Therefore it becomes a special committee. That can always be done. The Senate itself can appoint an- other special committee, or the Senate can select for that purpose any one of its standing committees. Iam also in agreement that, upon spe- cfic authority, the production of the confidential files of the State Department oc of any other department would have to be ordered and directed by the Senate. I do not think that would be within the power of the Foreign Relations Commit- tee or of the committee constructed un- der this resolution. Bat would it not be better for the com- mittee itself, if it saw fit to go into any of those records, to come back to the Senate and request specific authority to do so? If the committee were going to do its duty at all, presumably it would do exactly that. If it started to operate a dragnet of this kind in the beginning, a hopeless situation would be developed. Mr, FERGUSON. In reply, let me say that very serious charges were made against certain employees of the State Department and against certain persons who had left the State Department and who had entered the service of other Gov- ernment departments. Those charges were to the ef.ect of disloyalty to the United States. The Senator from Wis- consin indicated that he had obtained his information in regard to such dis- loyalty from the files and records of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE State Department and of other depart- ments. If the Senate of the United States cloes not direct this special com- mittee, which is the Foreign Relations Committee, having charge of matters concerning the Department of State, to subpena those files and records, how could we ever be said to have actually investigated the charges? Mr. GEORGE. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to ask a question at this point? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; I am glad to yield for a question. Mr. GEORGE. Did the Senator from Wisconsin specify the persons; did he go into details? Mr. FERGUSON. He did not specify them by name, but he did specify them by number. Mr. GEORGE. Very well. Then, what the Senator is proposing is that the special committce begin to use a dragnet and bring in all the files. When that is done the committee and the Senate itself vill be so involved that they will be able to get nowhere. But if the committee, in investigating any of these charges and in looking into them, finds specific names of persons who are charged with disloyalty, then the committee can come to the Senate— and presumably would have to come on more than one occasion—and can ask for some specific direction and author- ity. I agree that 1t should do so. ButI do not see any common sense in going into all the departments now and asking that all their personnel files and loyalty files be brought up here. Mr. FERGUSON. I do not include any dragnet. I include only the files and records of the persons against whom charges are heard by the committee. The Senator from Wisconsin has indi- cated that he will voluntarily go before the committee or any other committee of the Senate and will give the names and the information he has. Therefore, this provision would apply only to those whom he has charged with some par- ticular disloyalty. Therc is no intention to begin a dragnet or anything of that sort; the intention is merely to sec that the charges now out in the public will be investigated by the Senate, and that the Senate will use every weapon it has, every agency it has, every authority it has, to investigate thoroughly and give to the public the answers to all the ques- tions as to whcther there is disloyalty. Again I say that until that is done, un- til the public is satisfied that the Senate of the United States has aired every one of these charges and has used every weapon it has and every agency and every authority it has to air them for the benefit of the public, either in open or in closed session, the public will not be satisfied that we have done our duty. Mr. President, I am in fact asking only for a thorough investigation. Having served on a number of investigating committees, I know how essential it is to get all the records and all the papers, in order to make a complete investigation. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON, I yield for a ques- tion, FEBRUARY 22 Mr. LUCAS. Would this involve the Federal Bureau of Investigation in any way? Mr. FERGUSON. If that Bureau had loyalty files on a State Department em- ployee, it would require the subpena of the committee to that agency to get that particular file on that particular person. Mr. LUCAS. And whatever was in that file, regardless of what it was, would be spread before the committee. Is that correct? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. That is why I asked the junior Senator from Oregon whether that could be done in puivate. He said that under his amendmen, snd the one accepted by the Senator from Illinois, it could be done in private, and therefore no harm would be done to those records or to that egency. Mr, LUCAS. The Senator has been a Member of the Senate a good while, and he knows how much privacy results from executive sessions of committees. I have attended a considerable number of them, and I have yet to find an executive ses- sion which I have attended from which the news did not subsequently appear in the headlines, either the same day or the following day, in regard to what went on in the executive session, There is al- ways a leak. So someone will obtain, somehow, or in some way, the information. It seems to me the information in the files will be bound to get out to the public. I am in favor of a full and fair investigation, but I am also in favor of protecting the Fed- eral Bureau of Investigation, which, in my judgment, is the greatest agency of the Government operating today for the protection and safety of America. I believe I know how Mr. J. Edgar Hoover feels about files, as a result of what happened in the Judith Coplon case. As the Senator from Michigan knows, in that case there was a question of whether all the files would be opened, with the result that a number of innocent persons would be smeared, or whether the files would not be opened, with the result that certain evidence relating to the person on trial might not be devel- oped. The former course was pursued, and the effectiveness of the Federal Bu- reau of Investigation and certain of its sources of information was destroyed. I raise this point because of what the opening of files may do to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I should like to have the Senator reply regarding that point. Mr FERGUSON, I shall reply at once. Mr. President, the public, the citizens of the United States, will never be satis- fied that the Senate has performed its duty if it does not look into all perti- nent files, including the files of the FBI in regard to the disloyalty charges which have been brought against State Department employees. Suppose that in the FBI records today there is clear and convincing evidence which would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain person has been disloyal to the United States, and suppose the com- mittee did not request those files. Would the public or would the Senate be satisfied that it had all the evidence in regard to whether the Department of State was free and clear from the
1950 charges of disloyalty which have been made in the Senate against such per- sons if that file was not thrown open in this investigation? For months, there have been charges of disloyalty on the part of certain State Department employees. We well remem- ber that a charge was made by the Un- American Activities Committee, of the House of Representatives, against Alger Hiss; and we well remember that the United States Department of State did not open its mouth about the charges, even though in its files there was evi- dence of guilt. Mr, MCMAHON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, FERGUSON. In just a moment. Mr. President, not only that, but the President of the United States said, “All these charges against Mr. Hiss are noth- ing but red herrings.” Mr. President, in a court of justice— in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fact—a jury decided that Mr. Hiss was guilty of perjury, which in effect proved that he had been disloyal while serving in the Department of State, by passing out certain records and files. That proved beyond any doubt that the Pres- ident of the United States was wrong when he said the charges against Mr. Hiss were nothing but red herrings. I say that unless the people of the United States can have a thorough and complete investigation of every one of the charges which have been made by the junior Senator from Wisconsin, there will stil] be a cloud over the State De- partment of the United States. America cannot afford that. America will not stand for that. So everything should be done to complete the airing of that charge: and the only way that can be done is to see the loyalty files of the Department of Justice and the loyalty files of the Department of State. The junior Senator from Wisconsin has said that the Loyalty Division of the Department of State recommended the discharge of certain employees on the ground of disloyalty. I say that those files should be subpenaed. The junior Senator from Michigan has served on the Appropriations Committee, and be- fore the issuance of the Executive order preventing congressional committees from seeing such files, certain files were brought to the Appropriations Commit- tee and were exhibited to it. I say to the Senate of the United States that if it could see all those files, I am sure the Senate would find a situa- tion of this sort: that a person’s loyalty had been questioned—so much so, that the departmental agency in charge of security had put in the file itself a mem- orandum saying that person should not see top-secret papers. The department head under whom the person worked was never notified of the order in the file. He stated to the committee that the person had access to all papers in his office, top secret and otherwise. Those are the kinds of files that must be subpenaed before the com- mittee. They are the files which will show whether there are disloyal per- sons within the Department of State. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Again I say there is but one way to clear up the matter, That is for the United States Senate to speak. It is for the United States Senate to say they will have a complete investigation; and, to be sure that the public will know it is going to be a complete investigation, The amendment is a directive to the committee to subpena the file, and to let us have a show-down. Let us have a show-down once and for all as to whether in a matter so important as the one now before the Senate and before this great country, a committee of the Senate can see the records and files and ascertain whether there is disloyalty within our Government. We must sat- isfy the people, because ours is a Re- public. I say, Mr. President, it is no more nor less than a direction by the Senate to its committee, to seek, through the avenue open to it, which is the ave- nue of subpena, to obtain the files. It is not that the committee should make a request, but that it be authorized to issue a subpena, the highest authority of the Senate, to obtain records from the Department of State and all other agen- cies. It has been said by the junior Sen- ator from Massachusetts that rule 134 may apply only to individuals outside the Government of the United States. The rule reads: COMMITTEE POWERS Src. 134. (a) Each standing committee of the Senate, including any subcommittee of any such committee, is authorized to hold such hearings, to sit and uct at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate, to require by subpena or otherwise the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and docu- ments, to take such testimony and to make such expenditures (not in excess of 810,000 for each committee during any Congress) as it deems advisable. The Senator has indicated it is very possible that that applies only to wit- nesses not in the employ of agencies of the Government. I do not share that construction of its language. I think the language clearly covers all witnesses, But we do not want the State Depart- ment or any other department or agency of the Government to hide behind the Janguage of the general rule. The amendment now proposed would leave no doubt that a subpena would apply to Government witnesses and Government records and files. For that reason we should have a vote upon this important amendment, if it is not accepted by the Senator from Illinois. Mr, LUCAS and Mr. McCARTHY ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield; and if so, to whom? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield first to the Senator from Ulinois. I will yield after that to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. LUCAS. I want to get back to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am satisfied every Senator has the ut- most confidence in that agency of the Government. Mr. FERGUSON. I have. I want to say publicly I have such confidence. Mr. LUCAS. I do not want to do any- thing that is going to injure the effec- 2145 tiveness or the efficiency of that great institution of Government, and if I read the amendment correctly, there is no limit to the number of files that may be brought in. In other words, the rec- ords of all Government employees within the State Department and within other agencies, against whom charges have been made may bc subpenaed under this amendment. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. If the charges were made against someone in the State Depart- ment, I suppose there would be a hearing. Mr. FERGUSON. And it would be necessary to get the files. Mr. LUCAS. It would be necessary to get the files. Since there is no end to the number of people who can be brought in, there would also be no end to the num- ber of files which could be subpenaed for production before the committee, if charges had been made. The Senator from Illinois is just as anxious as is anyone else to root out the Communists, if there are any, in the State Department or any other agency of Gov- ernment. But at the same time the Sen- ator from Illinois does not want in any way to break down the efficiency of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I should like to know whether the Senator from Michigan has ever obtained the opinion of J. Edgar Hoover on this very thing? Mr. FERGUSON. No; the junior Sen- ator from Michigan has not spoken to Mr. Hoover. Mr. Hoover is entirely under the direction of the Attorney General. Mr. LUCAS. I was coming to that. Mr. FERGUSON. I say again, if we cannot in this investigation examine the files and records of the one agency whose duty it has been, and which has received millions of dollars of the public tax- payers’ money for the purpose of ob- taining evidence of any disloyalty on the part of people within the United States, if an executive session of the great For- eign Relations Committee of the United States Senate cannot see those files, then I say the public will never be convinced that we have looked into the question of the loyalty or disloyalty of persons within the State Department. Mr. LUCAS and Mr. McCARTHY ad- dressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield, and if so, to whom? Mr, FERGUSON. I will yield to the Senator from Wisconsin after I have yielded to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. This is extremcly im- portant, and I am trying my best to go along with the Senator from Michigan. Mr. FERGUSON. I hope the Senator can do so. Mr. LUCAS. I feel the investigation is very necessary. On the other hand, I cannot get away from the value of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the country, to its safety and security. When the Committee on Foreign Relations, in executive session, after hearing all the testimony, and having before it, the file which has come from the FBI, has finally determined a certain man to be disloyal and a man who ought to be tried, then, under the Morse amendment, the man
2146 will be given a public hearing. Is that correct? Mr, FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. Then the file of the FBI, regardless of what is ‘n it, becomes open to the public, regardless of what anyone Says. Mr. FERGUSON. No; that is not the idea of the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morset!. He limited it to such compe- tent evidence as may be in the file. Mr. LUCAS. Anyway, with the file before it, it is up to the committee to make a determination as to what is to be made public, and what is not. Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. Mr. LUCAS. Supposing the commit- tee decided all of it should go in? Mr. FERGUSON. Presumably, then, it should. Mr. LUCAS. It should all go in? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes. Mr. LUCAS. Then it would make no difference how many persons might be involved or might be mentioned in the file; just as in the Judith Coplon case, they would be smeared by the opening of the file, regardless of whether they were guilty or innocent. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Illinois has been a lawyer all his life. Mr. LUCAS. I was, until I came to the Senate. Mr. FERGUSON. Well, all his adult life. [(Laughter.] But, Mr. President, the Senator knows that in every trial— yes, in every civil trial and every crimi- nal trial—there is evidence that people would not like to have disclosed, but which justice, as it is administered in the United States in open court, requires be brought out to establish certain facts, and therefore it is essential. The distin- guished Senator from Iowa has indicated that today there are men in America who are guilty of crimes, who are not being tried, because the United States Gov- ernment feels it cannot prosecute them without laying the evidence before the public, evidence which the Government does not want the public to know. Mr. President, 1f the United States Govern- ment does not want to produce such evi- dence, it wil] never seek an indictment by @ grand jury. But the evidence showed that the secret files of the United States, files in the Department of Justice and the FBI, were being seen by Judith Cop- lon. She has been convicted of having removed from those files certain records. Then Senators stand here to say the For- eign Relations Committee, headed by the distinguished Senator from Texas, should not see a file of the United States De- partment of Justice. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I do not like to have him place me in a position which is not justified. Mr. FERGUSON. I have sought to interpret the position in which the dis- tinguished Senator has placed himself. Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Illinois has not placed himself in any such posi- tion as that suggested by the Senator from Michigan. All the Senator from Illinois is trying to do is to obtain the viewpoint of the able Senator from Michigan. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE Mr. LUCAS. I have been trying to get the Senator's viewpoint with respect to what the production of the files will do to the effectiveness of the Federal Bu- reau of Investigation. The Senator can- not put words into my mouth, in an ar- gument of that kind. That is all I am trying to do, and I think it is a legitimate and fair approach the Senator from Illinois is trying to make on the floor of the Senate. Mr. FERGUSON. answer the Senator. Mr. MCCARTHY and Mr. LAND addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield, and if so, to whom? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield first to the Senator from Wisconsin, who has been on his fect for some time. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I think there is a very easy way of meeting the objection of the Senator from Illinois. As the Senator from Michigan knows, there are two parts of a file. There is the part containing the evidence and the conclusions. There is also that part which divulges the sources of informa- tion. I am sure neither the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Wis- consin, nor any other Senator wants to obtain the latter part of the file, which Geals with the sources of information. So, I think it should be made clear at this time that it is not the desire of any Senator to require the production of any part of the file other than that having to do with the evidence itself and the conclusions. That is all that is needed. We do not need to inquire into the sources of information, the tip-offs, within the State Department or any- whcre else. Mr. FERGUSON. M1. President, the amendment is clear The amendment says the Foreign Relations Committee shall have the right to see the file. As indicated by the Senator from Oregon, who proposed an amendment to require public hearings, the committee may sit in executive session, and I am assuming the subcommittee, or the committee as a whole, which is to conduct the examina- tion, will use such portions of the flle and in such way as will not harm the security of the United States. But it will assure the public that a committee of the Senate has seen the file and that the committee knows all about the employees of the State Department who have been charged with disloyalty, and that the committee will determine whether charges should be made. Then, and then only, will the public be satisfied that the Senate has discharged its duty. Mr. McMAHON and Mr. KNOWLAND addressed the Chair. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Michigan yield, and, if so, to whom? Mr, FERGUSON. Iyield to the Sena- tor from California, who was on his feet first. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, I am glad the Senator from Michigan clarified the point which may have been in the mind of the Senator from Illinois, and perhaps also in the minds of some others of us. In his earlier statement, I am trying to KNOW- FEBRUARY 22 it appeared as though perhaps the pro- duction of all the records of all the em- ployees would be required. Obviously the Senator never had that in mind. What he has in mind, as I understand, is that when charges have been made, when the Senator from Wisconsin or anyone else comes before the commitec to say, concerning Mr. X, Mr. Y, or Mr. Z, “We have evidence and indications that those persons have been active against the best interests of the United States,” the com- mittee, then, acting in its capacity as a representative of the Senate of the United States, will, under the amend- ment offered by the junior Senator from Michigan, subpena, by direction of the Senate, the specific records and the specific persons. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. KNOWLAND. It is not a general dragnet. It will be applied only as against those persons who have been named before the committee. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. McMAHION. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON, I yield. Mr. McMAHON. Assuming the com- mittee decides to place a charge against XX, and does so on the basis of informa- tion which is in the files furnished by confidential informants of the FBI, and the committee is now ready for an open hearing, in what position is the com- mittee, I would ask the Senator, as to whether it should call the FBI to disclose the confidential informants so that they could be placed on the stand to give testimony against X in his open trial? Mr. FERGUSON. The committee it- self would determine its position in such a case. This is only a directive to pro- cure the file and to examine the file. Mr. McMAHON. Yes; but I want to point out to the Senator—— Mr. FERGUSON. It does not say that the committec shall call J. Edgar Hoover or any other particular witness. That will be solely within the discretion of the committee. The thing the Senate would do by this directive is to see that the committee gets the file. The Senator from Michigan is of the opinion that if the Senate speaks by this amendment, the committee will get the files. There is no doubt about that. Mr. MCMAHON. The Senator from Michigan is not interested in his amend- ment merely for the purpose of getting some filcs so that they may be examined. He wants those files so that the com- mittee may proceed upon the basis of the information contained therein. Is not that correct? Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. I expect the committee to act with dili- gence. Mr. McMAHON. Let us suppose the case of Mr. A—we have before us in ex- ecutive session the FBI file on Mr, A, and we find 10 confidential informants listed. The Senator has seen the files and knows how they are lsted. They are listed as one, two, three, four, and so forth, as having informed the FBI that Mr. A is disloyal; he has been reading the Daily Worker, and so forth. We say, “All right; we shall put Mr. A on trial.” We then put him on trial, Do we then
1950 say to the FBI, “Produce one, two, three, four, your confidential informants, for the purpose of making a case against Mr. A”? At that point, how does the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations proceed? Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Because I think this is in point—— Mr. McMAHON. The Senator from Michigan is getting himself a lawyer. Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. No; the Senator from Michigan is as able a lawyer as can be found in the Senate Chamber, and the Senator from California hap- pens to be a newspaperman. I have served on the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy with the able Senator from Con- pecticut, and I think I am somewhat ‘familiar with some of the problems which the Senator has in mind. It seems to me that the committee will deal with each case based on the importance of the case. If, after examination of the record of the FBI, it shall determine there is another Alger Hiss holding a position of responsibility in which he can do great damage to the Government of the United States, it may call in Mr. Hoover and say to him, ‘Mr. Hoover, this is a matter of such paramount im- portance to the Government of the United States that we feel the inform- ants should disclose themselves, and the public service will be better served if they do.” If, on the other hand, it is a matter of a chauffeur in the Department and the disclosing of the informants would not be worth while, the committee, in its judgment, might determine it would not be worth the effort and the damage which might result. I would say that each case must stand on its own feet. Mr. FERGUSON. There is no doubt that each case would stand on its own feet. This debate is bringing out the fact that unless the committee gets the records, it will have nothing on any of these persons as to disloyalty, because the evidence of disloyalty is in the files. The committee is not going to make an independent check; it is not going to start from scratch to make an investiga- tion of a particular person. It is first going to say, ‘““‘What is shown by the rec- ords of the departments which have already investigated the subject?” If we are to start at scratch, we shall get nowhere in the examination. Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoey in the chair). Does the Senator from Michigan yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? Mr. FERGUSON. I shall be glad to yield. Mr. SALTONSTALL. I know the Sen- ator disagrees with the point which was mace that there is no authority to get records by subpena from a department official if the President orders to the contrary. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. SALTONSTALL. What the Sena- tor is attempting to do by this amend- ment, and is clearly doing by it, is to put the burden of proof on any department CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE head who refuses to give the Senate com- mittee the records. Is that a fair state- ment? Mr. FERGUSON. It is. Mr. SALTONSTALL. In other words, the Senate committee will be trying its best to make just as full an investigation and as fair an investigation as it is possi- ble to make, but it can only do so if it gets the records. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. SALTONSTALL. If the records are refused, the burden of proof is on the executive branch which refuses the rec- ords, is it not? Is that a fair statement? Mr. FERGUSON. I think that is a fair statement. That is why I think the com- mittee would want this amendment. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. WHERRY. If the _ resolution should be agreed to and the committee should proceed to carry out the inten- tion of the resolution to find out about the charges made by the Senator from Wisconsin, is it not a fact that under section 134 there is no authority for a senatorial committee to get the files of one of these disloyal persons? Mr. FERGUSON. I would not go that far. Mr. WHERRY. The committee has the authority to get them, provided the agency which has the files will give them to the committee. Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. WHERRY. If the agency refuses, then there is no authority unless it be established under this amendment. Mr. FERGUSON. I think it is at least a@ special committee being created, and we should, in the creation of the com- mittee, provide for the power of subpena, Mr. WHERRY. Is it not necessary that this amendment be placed in the resolution to accomplish the very pur- pose about which I have just asked the Senator? Mr. FERGUSON. I think that is cor- rect. Mr. WHERRY. Why should not the Senate committee see the files? Mr. FERGUSON. I know of no rea- son, if it is going to make an investiga- tion. Mr. WHERRY. Are not Members of the Senate entrusted by agencies of the Government with information, such as atomic-energy information, the hydro- gen bomb, top military strategy, and things of that nature? Are not the Members of the Senate entrusted with such information? If so, why in the world cannot the members of the Foreign Relations Committee see what they want to see in the files? Mr. FERGUSON. There is no reason why the Foreign Relations Committee should not see the files. Mr. WHERRY. Does the Senator feel that if a representative of some Govern- ment agency presents himself before a committee and says, “Now, here is the file; ask me questions about it, and if there is anything that is of interest I will answer them”—does the Senator feel that is a sufficient examination of a file to prove the charges which the Senator from Wisconsin has made against 57 persons? 2147 Mr. FERGUSON. It does not go to prove them at all. Mr. WHERRY. Certainly, it seems to me, if we are to have the kind of investi- gation which has been suggested by the majority leader, which is to go to the bottom of the question and clear those who are innocent and, if possible, secure evidence to place charges against those who are guilty, the committee must have the authority to demand of any depart- ment its files, so as to make a complete examination of them. I wish to ask the Senator one more question. When I joined with the Sena- tor it was to say that, so far as I was con- cerned, I believed the Senate had a right to examine any file. Hundreds of em- ployees examine the files. They have a right to look at the files. Why should not 96 Senators have a right to look at them? If we do not wish to look at all the files, we can look at the files of those against whom charges have been made. Cer- tainly the files should be forthcoming as to those against whom charges have been made, if the committee wishes to examine them to see whether the charges of disloyalty can be proved. Mr. FERGUSON. I do not believe that I shall have to answer the question propounded by the distinguished Sena- tor, because I believe he has answered it himself. Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. MAGNUSON. I appreciate the objectives of the Senator, and I should like to ask him a question. Like the Senator from Nebraska, I do not believe that there is any question about en- trusting a file to the Committee on For- eign Relations. Top secrets have been entrusted to many committees. During the war the topmost secret of all was en- trusted to a committee. But I wonder what would happen in a case I have in mind. We are talking about an open hearing, and about being fair. Let us assume that in connection with its in- vestigation of Mr. A the committee looks at all the files, including confidential files, FBI files, and top-secret files, and the committee either charges him, or feels that there is enough evidence to warrant charging him. They bring Mr. A in, and he says, “Well, I would like to know what the basis of these charges is.” The commit- tee says, “We have read it in certain files.’ They make that general state- ment, without divulging anything fur- ther. Suppose the accused says, “I think I should be confronted with the files from which you accuse me.” What would be the situation? Suppose the person were to say, “I would like to know who said it. I would like to know where it came from. I would like to know who accuses me.” And so on, and so forth. Would not the effect be, if the commit- tee granted the request, to bring all the files out in the open, including the FBI files? Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, the Senator answers his own question. What he says to the committee 1s, “Please don’t look at any files, because if you have any knowledge someone may
2148 gome in and ask you what knowledge you ave.” Mr. MAGNUSON. Oh, no. Mr. FERGUSON. How can a person be investigated if the files are not ob- tained? Mr. MAGNUSON. I did not mean that. I did not say the committee should not see the files. Suppose the accused says, “I would like to know who said it. I would like to know who told the FBI that.” Mr. FERGUSON. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut IMr. Mc- Manon], I understand, will be the chair- man of the subcommittee. If that be true, he being the head of the Atomic Energy Committee, I take it for granted that he has used a good deal of discretion in that committee, and that he will use discretion in the investigating commit- tee. Mr. MAGNUSON. We are not in dis- agreement. Do I understand the Sena- tor to say that if the accused were to say, “I would like to see the files from which Iam accused,” the committee would have to use its discretionary power if it in- volved an FBI file, and say, “We cannot give you that information?” Mr.FERGUSON, The committee may do that. Mr. MAGNUSOW. Is that correct? Mr. FERGUSON. Yes; the committee may do that. They could say, “In the interest of security, we cannot tell you that.” Or they may say, ‘We simply cannot tell you that.” Mr. MAGNUSON. I come to my last question. They will have to use a great deal of discretion, because these persons have been accused of selling top secrets. When files are brought into an open hearing, and sometimes even in an exec- utive hearing, I wonder where our top secrets go. Mr. FERGUSON. If we do not wish to look at the files and do not wish to get the evidence, we will never satisfy the public that an investigation has been made. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I very much re- gretted that the majority leader was called upon to refer to the possibility that committees of the Senate were not able to retain confidences. I know he spoke rather facetiously. Sitting a little be- hind the majority leader is the distin- guished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations (Mr. McKexuarl, who, along with several of his colleagues, pos- sessed the most vital secret during the entire course of the war. They not only had knowledge regarding it, but they provided funds for it. I think it was one of the best-guarded secrets in history, so far as the American people were con- cerned. Asa matter of fact, the Truman Ccmmittee, of which the President, when he was a Senator, was chairman, and of which I was a member, in trying to find out what in the name of heaven the Senator from Tennessee was doing with 50 many billions of dollars, fell upon the same information, and again, so far as I know, the secret was never disclosed to any unauthorized soul; although we now Icarn that Russia was apparently CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE fully informed regarding it for a long period. I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McMauon] in the Chamber. I have always supposed, until this moment, that the Atomic Energy Committee, of which he is the chairman, possessed a vast fund of secret informa- tion. Certainly, he has repeatedly re- ferred to the great care with which the committee must move. I assume that there are a vast number of things they know about atomic energy which perhaps no other Members of the Senate know. I believe the majority leader, in arguing the question of this extension of power, would do well to consider whether or not any Members of the Senate—and I do not confine it to the Committee on Ap- propriations, or the Committee on Atomic Energy, or the Committee on Foreign Relations, which certainly has a vast amount of information regarding our foreign relations—should be brought under suspicion because of the unfortu- nate fact that unquestionably there have been leaks. There have been leaks in the House and elsewhere. I believe the Senate has confidence, and I see no other way of having constitutional processes and functions unless we seek to build with confidence, as I believe would be warranted by the procedure here con- templated. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Michigan yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Illinois. Mr. LUCAS. I do not like to remain silent after what the Senator from Maine has said I cast no reflection on any Senator. I merely know what has happened since I have been in the Sen- ate. Ihave been in many executive ses- sions considering different matters, and seldom have I been able to find that a secret was kept. Someone heard about the subject of the meeting in a short time, and the newspapers usually got the news before I got out of the room. I think that is pretty generally under- stood around the Senate. I, of course, realize that no doubt some of the top secrets have been kept. There is no question about that. If they are right at the top, it may be possible they are kept. But there 1s nothing too seri- ous about most of the executive ses- sions, which keeps some of the partici- pants from talking, or the clerks oc- casionally talk, and somehow commen- tators and reporters get the news after executive sessions are held. Iam merely speaking from long experiences I have had with executive sessions. Perhaps I have been in the wrong group during those sessions. Now let me ask the Senator a ques- tion with respect to his amendment. He says in the amendment ‘‘and such other agencies,” so that it would read “records of all the Government employees in the Department of State and such other agencies,” and so forth. Would the Sen- ator be willing to add there, ‘‘so far as the committee deems advisable’? The phrase “such other agencies” takes in a great deal of territory. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Michigan does not see how he can accept that modification. Under the wording FEBRUARY 22 “such other agencies” the committee it- self would be allowed to determine the agencies which might have the records it desired. Mr. LUCAS, Let me get the amend- ment straight. The amendment applies directly to employees of the State De- partment? Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. It applies directly to the employees of the State Department against whom charges have been filed? Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. The amendment applies only to those employees of the State De- partment against whom charges have been filed which have been heard by the Committee on Foreign Relations? Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. In the event it is deter- mined that some former employee of the State Department was at one time accused of being guilty of disloyalty to the Government, and he has moved to some other department, that is the in- dividual the Senator is after when he says “other agencies’? Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. In other words, the Sen- ator is really confining the amendment to State Department employees, whether they are employed there now or have been employed there heretofore? Mr. FERGUSON. That is correct. Mr. LUCAS. I have no objection to the amendment. I shall accept the amendment, but I say, in accepting it, that I am sure the Senator is fully famil- iar with what has been observed since the days of George Washington with re- spect to the battle between the legislative branch of the Government and the exec- utive branch. Mr. FERGUSON. that. Mr. LUCAS. It 1s all in the law books. I remind the Senator of a current event, to show how jealous the legislative branch of the Government is of its rights. Recently in the trial of one Cristoffel indicted for perjury, the judge of the court issued a subpena duces tecum on the Clerk of the House of Rep- resentatives to bring in the confidential records of a special committee of the House, and the House of Representatives on three different occasions voted to tell the judge where to go. By their action they said they were not going to deliver up the secret minutes of the committee which they had in their possession in the House of Representatives. In other words, the House of Representatives flouted the judiciary. That is what has been going on through all the history of this great Republic. The legislative flouts the judiciary. The judiciary flouts the legislative branch. So it goes. I merely mention that in passing because the latest example of how seriously the legislative branch of the Government is guarding its rights and keeping its rec- ords from going to another branch of the Government can be found in the ac- tion taken by the House of Representa- tives. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, fol- lowing the discussion which has taken place between the distinguished Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Michigan and other Senators on the I am familiar with
1950 floor, and since it is the purpose under the resolution only to investigate those who are charged, and particularly those who are charged under the evidence of- fered by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, I ask to withdraw my second amendment which provides “or any other agency of the Government con- cerned with the intercourse of the United States with other nations.” I understand that the Commerce Committee is making an investigation of its own, and any other committee which is concerned with any other department of the Government, can make investi- gations of its own. While we wish to have an investigation of all those charged who are or have been in the State Department, including those who may once have been in the State Depart- ment but are now employed by another department or agency, we want to avoid any conflict with a possible investiga- tion by another committee. It is for that reason that I ask to withdraw my second amendment. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. I simply would like to ask the Senator from Michigan if he is not a little concerned over the statement just made by the majority leader, who represents on the floor of the United States Senate the administra- tion in control of the White House? It seems to me that while it is true that historically there has been this differ- ence of opinion, yet in the case of ferret- ing out those who may be disloyal to the Government of the United States, the executive branch of the Government and the legislative branch of the Govern- ment should act as members of the same team together. They should not act at arm's length. The executive branch should not attempt to throw technicali- ties in the way of the Senate of the United States doing its job to help clean out any subversive elements that exist in the Government of the United States. I cannot believe that the distinguished President of the United States, a former Member of this body, will interpose any obstacles, based on technicalities, to pre- vent a full and complcte investigation so that once and for all we may determine whether there are any subversive ele- ments in the executive branch of the Government of the United States. Mr. FERGUSON. I thank the distin- guished Senator from California for his statement. I think it will impress the President and all concerned that this is the time and place for teamwork be- tween the executive branch and the leg- islative branch. ‘There is no better place to have bipartisanship. I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for accepting the two amendments, be- cause that shows a spirit of cooperation in the attempt to have a thorough and complete bipartisan investigation in or- der to satisfy the public. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. LUCAS. Iam very glad the Sen- ator made that last statement, in view of what the Senator from California CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE just said. I do not say that there was an implication, but there is a possible implication on the part of the Senator from California that the Senator from Illinois, because he happened to make a statement of fact concerning what ex- isted throughout the history of the coun- try from the beginning of the Republic in respect to quarrels between the ex- ecutive and the legislative branches, was telling someone in advance as to what is going to happen. So far as I am concerned, I will tell my distinguished friend the Senator from Texas [Mr. ConnatLy] now that I will do everything within my power to cooperate with the committee to sce that whatever is necessary is done in order to ferret this thing out. I want the Senate to know that and I want the country to know that. I want to have investigated the charges which have been made by the Senator from Wisconsin, I want the Senator from Wisconsin to go before the committee and give the names. I want him to tell the committee where he ob- tained his information. I want him to tell the committee what it is. I want him to go into details before the com- mittee, because the responsibility on the Senator from Wisconsin is a heavy one as a result of the speeches he has made throughout the country and as a result of the speech he made here on the floor of the United States Senate. It is his duty and his obligation to lay before the committee every fact, regardless of what it may be, respecting where he obtained the information, and to lay everything that is in his files before the committee. I am sure the Senator from Wisconsin will do that. Mr. FERGUSON. The Senator from Michigan wants the same thing. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY. I do not know why the Senator from Illinois continues to re- peat exactly the same thing I have pre- viously said respecting what I will do. I do not need his advice. I have said that I would give all the information I have. The Senator from Wlinois has heard me say that the names are avail- able. Therefore, why he continues to advise me to do what I have a dozen times said I would do, I do not know. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I am not advising the Senator from Wisconsin to do anything. I doubt whether any Sen- ator on this side of the aisle or on the other side of the aisle can effectively ad- vise the Senator from Wisconsin. What I am trying to do is to help the Senator from Texas. However, I am sure he does not need it, because he is no green hand in such investigations, having had such a Jong and distinguished career in this body. Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, be- fore I yield the floor I want to say that the hypothetical case I cited earlier ac- tually was an instance of what a file showed in relation to a certain State Department employee. However, that employee is no longer with the State Department. So far as the Senator from Michigan knows he is not con- nected with any Department. It fol- 2149 lows that no reflection is cast upon the State Department by the reference to that disloyal employee. Mr. McCARTHY, Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. FERGUSON. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY. I should like to notify the Senator from Illinois about one thing. I notice that he said that he hoped I would go before the committee and tell exactly where I received all the information I have. I know the State Department is very eager to know how some of us now know about the unusual activities in that Department. For ex- ample, I know they are curious to know how we know that in their files there are recommendations that certain indi- viduals be dismissed, and that after those recommendations were made those indi- viduals were given top seciet clearance. I want to assure the Senator from Nlinois and the Senate that I do not intend to so enlighten the State Depart- ment. If I went before any committee and gave the names and said, for ex- ample, “John Jones from the State De- partment has given us access to certain information” that man’s job would not be worth q tinker’s damn. I am going to give out nothing to satisfy the curi- osity of the State Department officials or the Senator from Illinois by telling how I developed or where I developed all the information I have. All the infor- mation will be made available. Every- thing I make available will be confirmed by the State Department files. Mr, FERGUSON. I yield the floor. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I wish to make a statement in reply to the Senator from Wisconsin. We now find that the Senator from Wisconsin is not going to give to the committee the sources from which he obtained the information with respect to those against whom he has made charges. Yet the Senator from Illinois has just accepted an amend- ment offered by the Senator from Michi- gan which seeks to bring in FBI files with all the information therein. We want Mr. Hoover and his men to tell every- thing to the committee. Yet the Sena- tor from Wisconsin now says he is not going to give the committee any infor- mation respecting the sources of the information he obtained, and which he gave to the country and to the Senate the other night. Mr. President, I hope the Senate com- mittee will insist that the Senator from Wisconsin gives to the committee the sources of his information. If a commit- tee of the United States Senate is going to do an effective job it must know ex- actly where the information came from. The committee must know that. The Senator from Wisconsin is the one indi- vidual more responsible for the inves- tigation than any other individual, by reason of the charges he has made. He cannot hide behind the sources of the information, which, if true, threatens the security of our country. If all the individuals he charges with disloyalty to the Government are guilty, it is his duty as a United States Senator and as a citizen of the United States to tell exactly where he obtained the informa- tion. He has as much responsibility in
2150 that respect as the FBI would have. It was stated by the Senator from Michigan that the FBI should lay its files before the committee. If its files are laid before the committee and charges are made against A, and there are four informants or a dozen informants, and it becomes necessary to put those informants on the stand in order to prove disloyalty to the Government, they ought to be placed on the stand so as to let the people know who informed the country with respect to the disloyalty of a certain individual or certain individuals. The Senator from Wisconsin is in the same position with respect to his informants as we may find the informants in the FBI file. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY. Let me tell the Senator from Illinois that it is of no con- _cern to him or anyone else as to how I secured the information from the State Department files. It is information to which the Senator from Wisconsin or any other Senator should be entitled. To obtain the information which I read to the Senate I succeeded in penetrating the ‘fron curtain, Truman’s iron curtain, of secrecy. I have freely given this infor- mation to the Senate, and under no cir- cumstances would I give the names of any Government employee who may have aided me in securing that information. If such there were and I were to give their names, their jobs would not be worth *hat much. Mr. President, so that there will be no question in the minds of any Senators or in any other citizens, the Senator from Wisconsin will not ever give the names of any Government employces who may have helped him secure the information which he presented to the Senate. Mr. LUCAS. Iam not surprised that the Senator will not give up the infor- mation. Yet every Senator knows that we are now proceeding into an investi- gation which the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Morse] said would probably be a historic one. Yet the Senator from Wis- consin, who is responsible for bringing on this investigation, who knows the facts with respect to those who are charged, says now he will refuse to give to the committee any information re- specting the source of his information. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yicld? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, it seems to me it is very important for the Senate to distinguish between the type of information the Senator from Wis- consi says he does not intend to reveal and the type o! information coming from persons who have information regarding disloyalty in the Government of the United States. 1 have no knowledge of the documents the Senator from Wisconsin has or the facts upon which he made his charges; but it seems to me that the basic matter for the committee to investigate is whether there is available in the files of the State Department or in the files of the FBI information indicating that there are in the State Department per- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE sons who are disloyal to the Government or who are bad security risks. It does not seem to me that it is the duty of the Senate or of the committee to leave that issue and go to the question either of trying the Senator from Wis- consin or of closing up the source of the information he has. I think that every Member of the Sen- ate and, I am certain, every newspaper- man in the country, recognizes that on many occasions there have been avail- able to them sources of information whereby the press has for the first time disclosed to the Congress and to the pub- lic information which the Congress and the country otherwise would not have had. The newspapermen have always taken the position that they would not disclose the source of their information. Why have they done so? Because once they did disclose it, they would dry up that source of information. I think the Senator from Wisconsin in this particular is in the same position that a newspaperman would be in. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for his con- tribution. I wish to make this closing statement, and then I shall be through: Whoever may be the persons, either in the State Department or in any other agency of the Government, who are charging vari- ous individuals with disloyalty to their Government, and are going through the back door in order to get that infor- mation out, they should have the intes- tinal fortitude, if they are the right kind of Americans, to come forward them- selves and give such information to the committee and to the people of the United States. I hope that, somehow, in some way, we shall be able to learn of the identity of these informants. Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. In a moment. Mr. President, I am not attempting to try the Senator from Wisconsin, as has been indicated by the Senator from Cali- fornia. But if we are going to get all the facts and if everyone wishes to be on the square with this investigation, if we are going to drag in the FBI files, we should have all the information avail- able from every source. Certainly, as the Senator from Wisconsin well knows, in a court of law the information he has presented here so far would not stand the legal test. In other words, those who are the fountainhead of that informa- tion would be compelled to come before a court and tc give that testimony. I know we are not serving as a court; but, Mr. President, the charges are so serious and far reaching that we should not overlook or withhold anything in attempting to learn the facts from every- one who has been interested in this mat- ter from the beginning. If we can dis- cover the employee—— Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. LUCAS. I yield. Mr. McCARTHY,. Let me make my- self absolutely clear: When I say that I will not divulge the source of any infor- mation, the Senator can rest assured that if I give any hearsay evidence that was received from anyone, obviously FEBRUARY 22 those names will be given to the com- mittee. However, I will not undcr any circum- stances give to the committee the name of anyone who has furnished me with documents, because a document speaks for itself, and it is no business whatever of the committee where I got such docu- ments. I do know that as of today the State Department is very curious to know whether someone in the State Depart- ment has given me any documented in- formation on any communistically in- clined employees. Any documcnied in- formation which I supply the commit- tee can be checked with the original State Department files. That is once reason why the Senator from Michigan has offered to the reso- lution the amendment providing that the original files shall be available. Again, Mr. President, when I say that I will not divulge the source, I repeat that I have no intention of giving the name of any person who may have fur- nished me with any document, because, as I have said, the document will speak for itself. On the other hand, if I give any hear- say evidence that has been received from some person, the Senate can rest assured that I will give the names of such persons to the committee. Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, we find ourselves in a very anomalous situation, namely, that we will open to the commit- tee everything in the FBI files, but the McCarthy files are sacred. I yield the floor. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Illinois agree to modify the resolution by accepting the two Ferguson amendments as modifications of the resolution? Mr, LUCAS. Yes; I agree to those modifications, The VICE PRESIDENT. The ques- tion, then, is on agreeing to the resolu- tion as modified. | Putting the question.] The resolution (S, Res. 231) was agreed to. The resolution, as agreed to, is as follows: Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, 1s authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are or have been employed by the Department of State. The committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its investigation, together with such recom- mendations as it may deem desirable, and if said recommendations are to include formal charges of disloyalty against any individual, then the committee, before making said rece ommendations, shall give said individual open hearings for the purpose of taking evi- dence or testimony on said charges. In the conduct of this study and investigation, the committee 1s directed to procure, by subpena, and examine the complete loyalty and em- ployment files and records of all the Govern- ment employees in the Department of State and such other agencies against whom charges have been heard. REHABILITATION AND BETTERMENT CON- TRACTS ON RECLAMATION PROJECTS Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, there is pending on the calendar, No. 1280, Senate hill 3001, to expedite the re-
1950 habilitation of Federal reclamation proj- ects in certain cases. The bill was in- troduced by the two Senators from Colo- rado (Mr. MILLIKIN and Mr. JOHNSON). The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs was unanimous in reporting the bill favorably, with an amendment. Since it was reported to the Senate, on February 14, the House of Representa- tives has passed and sent to the Senate an identical bill, calendar 1285, House bill 7220. That measure amends a law which was enacted at the last session of Congress with respect to rehabilitation and betterment contracts on reclama- tion projects. A provision of that law is to the effect that when a contract for re- habilitation or betterment is made between the Secretary of the Interior and the water users upon a project, it shall be submitted to the Congress and shall remain there for 60 days before anything can be done regarding it. In the State of Colorado an emergency situation has arisen by reason of damage toatunnel. It is essential that the con- tract which has been agreed upon shall not have to wait for the 60-day period required by the law. So the bill will merely authorize the committees to act within that time. I have consulted the majority leader and the minority leader regarding this matter, and I find there is no objection to the bill. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I should like to ask one or two questions. Is it the purpose of the Senator from Wyoming to request unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the bill? Mr, O’MAHONEY. Yes. Mr. Presi- dent, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed immediately to the consideration of the bill. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, reserv- ing the right to object, let me inquire whether a bill similar to the Senate bill has been passed by the House of Repre- sentatives. Mr. MILLIKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? Mr, O’MAHONEY. I yield. Mr. MILLIKIN. In reply to the Sen- ator from Nebraska, let me say that a similar bill has been passed by the House of Representatives, and is now on the Senate calendar. Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, fur- ther reserving the right to object, let me say that I understand that author. izations for this matter have already been made; is that correct? Mr. MILLIKIN. Yes. Mr. WHERRY. I further understand that because there is an emergency in Colorado, it is desired to advance the date, without waiting the full 60 days, in order that the emergency may be taken care of. Mr. O’MAHONEY. The purpose of this measure is to amend the existing law merely by adding the words: Except that any such determination may become effective prior to the expiration of such 60 days in any case in which each such committee approves an earlier date and notifies the Secretary, in writing, of such approvel. Mr. WHERRY. Very well. Mr. President, there is no objection to the immediate consideration of the bill. Mr. O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to the considera- tion of House bill 7220. The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be stated by title for the information of the Senate. The LEGIsLaTIve CLerK. A bill (H. R. 7220) to expedite the rehabilitation of Federal reclamation projects in certain cases. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the bill was considered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. Mr, O’MAHONEY. Mr. President, I ask that Senate bill 3001 be indefinitely postponed. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob- jection, Senate bill 3001 is indefinitely postponed. ELIMINATION OF OVERLAPPING, DUPLI- CATION, AND WASTE IN GOVERN- MENTAL OPERATIONS Mr. HENDRICKSON, Mr. President, in the first session of this Congress, I introduced what I deemed to be a highly important measure which appears in the Recorp as Senate bill 810. Its purpose was to create a commission to study the whole question of intergovernmental relations, with a view to the elimination of overlapping, duplication, and waste in governmental operations at all levels. This measure was properly referred to the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, and, as a re- sult of lengthy hearings, was reported as Senate bill 1946, on June 13, 1949. Despite the merit of the measure, Mr. President, despite the fact that it carries out one of the Hoover report recom- mendations, despite the distinguished list of cosponsors who joined with me in this worthy effort to attain a better balance in our governmental structure, the bill was repeatedly objected to by the majority at each call of the calendar from the date it was reported to the present time. Now, Mr, President, I have no pride of authorship in this measure, but I sin- cerely hope that either this bill or some appropriate counterpart thereof will have consideration by the Senate at this session. I have referred to its importance. Why, Mr. President, it could well be that the recommendations of the agency which the bill would create, would bring to the Congress of the United States, or might well bring to the Congress of the United States, a complete solution of such major issues as Federal aid to edu- cation, because the whole subject of grants-in-aid and Federal subsidies gen- erally {s involved in the studies con- templated under this measure. And so, Mr. President, as I indicated in my re- marks earlier today, I hope that the ma- jority will see to it that in the course of the next few weeks we are all givena chance not only to discuss thoroughly our views on this important issue but also to voie our convictions on what I con- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE o 2151 sider to be one of the most vital measures before the Senate today. DOOMSDAY BOOK FOR SCOTLAND—LET- TER OF GEORGE WASHINGTON TO SIR JOHN SINCLAIR Mr. O"MAHONEY. Mr. President, this being Washington's Birthday, I desire to read briefly into the record a letter which was written by George Washing- ton on the 15th day of March 1793, to Sir John Sinclair, of Scotland, a former President of the Board of Agriculture of Great Britain, commenting very favor- ably upon the statistical account which Sir John initiated in Scotland in 1791. The object of the statistical account, in the words of its author, was to find out “the state of the country, for the pur- Pose of ascertaining the quantum of hap- piness enjoyed by its inhabitants and the means of its future improvement.” George Washington was so impressed with the object and purpose of the in- quiry that was carried on by Sir John Sinclair—who, by the way, sent out about 850 questionnaires containing 200 ques- tions each to every parish in Scotland— that, on March 15, 1793, he wrote the following letter: I cannot but express myself highly pleased with the undertaking in which you are en- gaged (that of drawing up the Statistical Account of Scotland), and give my best wishes for its success. I am full persuaded, that when enlightened men, will take the trouble to examine so minutely into the state of society, as your inquiries seem to go, tt must result in greatly ameliorating the con- dition of the people, promoting the interests of civil society, and the happiness of man- kind at large. These are objects truly worthy the attention of a great mind and every friend to the human race, must readily lend his aid towards their accomplishment. Mr. President, I think it rather signifi- cant that the first President of the United States, the man who presided over the Constitutional Convention, was moved to write such a letter to the sponsor of what was in effect the first inquiry into the condition of society in Scotland as long ago as 1793. COTTON AND PEANUT ACREAGE ALLOTMENTS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate pro- ceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 1283, House Joint Resolution 398, to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Sccre- tary will read the joint resolution by its e. The LecisnaTIve CLerK. A joint reso- lution (H. J. Res. 398) relating to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and mar- keting quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there ob- jection? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res, 398) relating to cotton and peanut acreage allotments and marketing quotas under the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended, which had been reported from the Committee on Agriculture and For- estry, with amendments.
2152 RECESS Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 12 o'clock noon tomorow. The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o’clock and 40 minutes p.m.) the Sen- ate took a recess until tomorrow, Thurs- day, February 23, 1950, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate February 22, 1950: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Patrick J Gilmore, Jr, of Alaska, to be United States attorney for division No. 1, district of Alaska. He is now serving in this office under an appointment which expired February 7, 1950. In THR Navy Vice Adm John D Price, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pny, and al- lowances of a vice admiral while serving as Chief, Naval Air Training Vice Adm. Donald B Duncan, United States Navy, to have the grade, rank, pay, and al- lowances of a vice admiral while serving as Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Opera- tions). HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Webnespay, Fesruary 22, 1950 The House met at 12 o’clock noon, The Chaplain, Rev. Bernard Braskamp, D. D., offered the following prayer: Almighty God, we thank Thee for this day when we unite to commemorate the hfe of George Washington, whom we rev- erently and affectionately call the Fa- ther of his Country. Our hearts expand with pride as we think of his spirlt of adventure, his forti- tude in times of hardship, and his fidelity to the principles of righteousness and justice which inspired him to champion the cause of the oppressed colonists. We rejoice in his testimony to a lofty idealism when he urged his fellow men to labor to keep alive within their breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience. We thank Thee above all for his hum- ble spirit and devout faith which sent him down upon his knees in prayer in order that he might know how to march in step with the eternal will and wisdom of God. Grant that the memory of his life may strengthen the soul of our Republic and inspire us to labor in faith, in faithful- ness, and in the fear of the Lord for the blessedness of all mankind. Hear us in the name of the Prince of Peace. Amen. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee and Mr. RANKIN made the point of order that a quorum was not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE A message from the Senate, by Mr. Carrell, one of its clerks, announced CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE that the Senate had passed a bill of the following title, in which the concurrence of the House is requested: 8.75. An act authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Bridge Canyon, together with certain appurtenant dams and canals, and for other purposes. CALL OF THE HOUSE A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: [Roll No 53] Allen, Ill, Gumer Poulson Allen, La, Gregory Powell Arends Hall, Rabaut Balley Edwin Arthur Ramsay Bates Harden Sabath Blatnik Hedrick Sxudowski Boykin Herter Shafer Bulwinkle Jacobs Smith, Ohlo Chatham Jones, Mo, Thomas Chiperileld Moulder Towe Davics.N Y Murdock Van Zandt Dingell O'Netll Withrow Fellows Patterson Woodhouse The SPEAKER. On this roll 393 Members have answered to their names, a@ quorum By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. THE JOURNAL Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I de- mand that the Journal be read in full. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will read the Journal. The Clerk read the Journal. Mr. FULTON (interrupting the read- ing of the Journal). Mr. Speaker, I move that further reading of the Jour- nal be dispensed with. The SPEAKER. That can only be done by unanimous consent. Mr. STEFAN (interrupting the read- ing of the Journal). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the Journal be dispensed with. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ne- braska? Mr, WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 64] Allen, La. Harden Pace Arends Hedrick Rabaut Blatnik Herter Sadowsk! Bulwinkle Hope Bimpson, Pa. Burdick Jacobs Smith, Ohio Byrne, N. ¥. Jennings Towe Case,S.Dak. Jones, Mo. Van Zandt Chatham Macy Davies, N. Y. Marsalis Gilmer Miller, Md. Hall, Norton Edwin Arthur O'Neill FEBRUARY 22 The SPEAKER. On this roll call 401 Members have answered to their names, @ quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. THE JOURNAL The Clerk continued reading the Journal. The Journal of the proceedings of yes- terday was approved. ANNOUNCEMENT The SPEAKER. The Chair under- stands there is a camera in the gallery. Whoever has that camera will remove the camera or remove themselves and the camera immediately. That is a vio- lation of the ruies of the House. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Speaker, a parlia- mentary inquiry. In that case, is it not the rule to clear the gallery? The SPEAKER. Not necessarily. Mr. RANKIN. To clear them of those who are violating the law. The SPEAKER. The Chair has just made that suggestion. GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS The SPEAKER. Pursuant tothe order of the House of February 16, 1950, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. McSwEeEnEy] to read George Washington’s Farewell Address. Mr. RICH. Mr. Speaker, we ought to have the membership here. I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. The Chair will count. {After counting.] Two hundred and eighteen Members are present, a quorum. The gentleman from Ohio I[Mr. McSwEENEY |]. Mr. McSWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honored by the opportunity that the Speaker has given me to read to the Congress of the United States the pro- phetic as well as the immortal words of the immortal George Washington. As I grow older I am more and more of the belief that a gracious providence has blessed America in many ways. Among his greatest blessings has been the gift to us of men, unselfish men, like George Washington, to serve us in the crucial and critical periods of our history. Charles Phillips, the great Irish orator, in going over the famous leaders of the past, attributed to them each their spe- cial abilities, and their special contribu- tions to mankind, but he adds in these words: In individual instances, no doubt, there are splendid exemplifications of some single, peculiar qualification, but it is reserved for George Washington to blend them all in one; and like the lovely chef d’oeuvre of the Grecian artist to exhibit in one glow of as- sociated beauty, the pride of every model, and the perfection of every master. I think you and I here as we are today would like to put this great question to the peoples of the world relative to Mr. Washington: “How shall we rank thee upon glory’s page, thou more than soldier and just less than sage?”
1950 Mr. Speaker, Mr. Washington's Fare- Bet Address to the people of the United tates: To the people of the United States: FRIENDS AND FELLOW Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in desig- nating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to @ more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this reso- lution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest; no defi- ciency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suf- frages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I con- stantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with for- eign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your con- cerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, what- ever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circum- stances of our country, you will not dis- approve my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were ex- plained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, con- tributed towards the organization and administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience, in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and, every day, the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is to terminate the career of my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the oppor- tunities I have thence enjoyed of mani- festing my inviolable attachment, by service faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be re- membered to your praise, and as an in- structive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the pas- sions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of for- tune often discouraging—in situations in which not unfrequently, want of suc- cess has countenanced the spirit of criticism,—the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans, by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may con- tinue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence—that your union and broth- erly affection may be perpetual—that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly main- tained—that its administration in every department may be stamped with wis- dom and virtue—that, in fine, the hap- piness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation, and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recom- mending it to the applause, the affection and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehen- sion of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent re- view, some sentiments which are the re- sult of much reflection, of no inconsider- able observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an en- couragement to it, your indulgent recep- tion of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recom- mendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which con- stitutes you one people, is also now dear 2153 to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real inde- pendence; the support of your tranquil- lity at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from differ- ent causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and ex- ternal enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed; it is of infinite moment, that you should properly esti- mate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable at- tachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jeal- ous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indig- nantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth, or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any ap- pellation derived from local discrimina- tions. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of com- mon dangers, suffering and successes, But these considerations, however powerfully they addressed themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest.—Here, every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and pre- serving the union of the whole. The north, in an unrestrained inter- course with the south, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry.— The south in the same intercourse, bene-= fiting by the same agency of the north, sees its agriculture grow and its com- merce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the north, it finds its particular navigation invigor- ated; and while it contributes, in differ- ent ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is un- equally adapted. The east, in a like ine tercourse with the west, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and