Evening star., 1948-09-25
FacfuaI Basis for u. n.
Subversive Testimony
Claimed by Visa Aide

Robert C. Alexander, assistan
chief Of the State Departments Viss
Division, contends there was ample
factual basis" for his testimony II
the effect that several hundred SUBJ
versive agents have entered thi!
country under cover of the Unitee
Nations.
This was emphasized in his answer
TO State Department charges o.
misconduct in Office and derelictior
of duty" filed against him as
result of his testimony before th'
staff of a Senate Judiciary Sub.
committee last July.
Mr.. Alexander's formal answer tt
the charges was filed with the State
Department late yesterday. 1t was
not made public, but his attorneys
issued a brief statement reviewing
the chief parts of his defense.
Immunity Claimed Under Law.
Another major contention in his
defense is that he has immunity
against any disciplinary action grow
ing out of his testimony, under an
"anti-gag" law passed by Congress
In 1912 and re-enacted last June.
Arthur j. Hilland, chief counsel
for Mr.. Alexander, said this law
stioulates that the right OF civil
service employees to furnish informa-
ton to any committee of Congress
shall not be denied or interfereo
with.
The charges against Mr.. AleXan-
der were filed after committee OF
three private citizens appointed by
Secretary of State Marshall reported
September ! that his testimony be-
fore the Senate subcommittee staff
was irresponsible in his lack OF
factual support"
The statement by Mr.. Alexander's
attorneys late yesterday said that
Ibis answer contains a complete de-
fense to all the charges preferred
against him" and indicates that
there was ample factual basis fol
his testimony before the Senate
staff committee"
Consent OF SuperlOTS.
If the charges against Mr.. Alex
ander were upheld, he would be
subject to discharge, suspension ol
reprimand. Oflcials have indicated
however, he would not be discharged
in view of his record of 81 years
service in the State Department.
His attorneys statement said Mr.
Alexander's formal answer brings
out that he had the written consent
of his superiors in the State Depart
ment to testify before the Senate
group.
It added that any disciplinary
action against him growing out Of
this testimony would tend to ham
per Congress in obtaining technlca
information and advice from Gov
ernment technicians," would moi
serve the best interests of the Unitee
Nations and would be contrary tt
the best security interests OF the
United States
The statement also emphasized
that Mr.. Alexander had no inten'
ton of attacking the United Nations
and in fact did not do So but
merely, Sin line Of duty, gave testi'
mony to a Senate staff committed
concerning a problem OF visa ad
ministration and security which ha!
arisen and still exists by reason O
international organization relation
ships"
Law Violation Charged.
Mr.. Hilland asserted that the no
tee of the charges preferred agains
Mr.. Alexander shows on its face
that the State Department hat
found him guilty of the charge!
without waiting for his answer. II
direct violation of the law under
which it is acting against him,
Having already found him guilty
of the charges" Mr.. Hilland added
"the department is now only afford
ing him an opportunity to present
facts and any extenuating circum-
stance which he considers may have
a bearing on the disciplinary action
to be taken against him. In other
words, the procedure adopted by the
department is contrary, not only to
the statute under which it is pro-
ceeding, but, also to our traditional
concept of due process of law
Mr.. Alexander's reply to the
charges was understood to refer tc
confidential material in State De-
partment files. For that reason his
attorneys did not feel free to make
1t public, but they said they would
not object to its release by the
department.
Attorneys associated with Mr.
Hllland in defense of Mr.. Alexander
are James r. Murphy and George
c. Warner, jr.
Public Hearing Asked.
They said they had asked the State
Department for public hearing on
the case and had been told this
request would be considered after
the department had time to study
Mr.. Alexander's written defense.
The committee which found Mr.
Alexanders testimony before the
Senate group irresponsible" was
composed of B. NJ McKelway. editor
of The Star; James H. Rowe, Jr.
former Assistant Attorney General
and MarcelluS c. SHIELD, retired
former clerk Of the House Appro-
priations Committee.
That committee report said Mr.
Alexander considered any alien
coming to the United States from a
Communist country to be potentially
subversive but that he could cite nc
case which actually has jeopardizeo
American security.
The committee assertion that Mr.
Alexander's testimony was ire
sponsible in its lack of factual sup
port" was understood to be the basis
of the misconduct charge against
him. The "dereliction OF duty
charge was based on another sec
ton of the committee report to Gen
Marshall, which said that so far as
it could determine. Mr.. Alexander
never had made any persistent
effort to bring what he considered
a serious situation to the attention
of responsible policy-making officials