davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Denies Oppenheimer
Stalled H-Bomb

He did not hinder the devel-
opment Of the H-bomb and
there Is absolutely nothing in
the testimony to show that he
did.
First he was in favor Of it
In 1914. There Is no indica-
ton that this opinion changed
until 1945. After 1945 he did
not favor it for some years
perhaps on moral, political or
technical grounds. Only time
will prove whether he was
wrong on the moral and polit-
ical grounds. After the presi-
Dental directive of January
81. 1850, he worked on this
project. If his opposition to
the H-bomb caused ay people
not to work on it, it was be-
cause of his intellectual prom
inence and influence over sci
entiflc people and not because
Of any subversive tendencies.
I personally think that our
failure to clear DR.. Open
heimer will be a black mark on
the eScutcheon Of our country.
His witnesses are consider
able segment Of the scientific
backbone of our Nation and
they endorse him. I am wor-
ried about the effect an i'm
proper decision may have on
the scientific development in
our country. Nuclear physics
is new in our country. Most of
our authorities in this field
came from overseas. They are
with us now. DR.. Oppenheimer
got most Of his education
abroad. We have taken hold
Of this new development in q
very great way. There is no
predicting where and how far
it may go and what its future
potentialities may be. would
very much regret any action
to retard or hinder this new
scientific development.
I would like to add that this
opinion was written before the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scien-
fists came out with its state
ment concerning the Open
heimer case.
This Is my opinion as a cit
iZen of a free country.
I suggest that DR.. Open
heimer's clearance be restored.
(s) WARD v. EVANS.
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Lack of Enthusiasm
Appears Risky

Without taking into account
the factual evidence, which in
our opinion should have led
the board to an opposite con-
clusionS, we submit that the
injection into a security case
of a scientists alleged lack of
enthusiasm for a particular
program is fraught with grave
consequences to this country.
How can a scientist risk advis-
ing the Government If he is
told that at some later day a
security board may weigh in
the balance the degree Of his
enthusiasm for some official
program? Or that he may be
held accountable for a failure
to communicate to the scien-
tific community his full
acceptance of such a program?
In addition to DR.. Open
heimer's alleged lack of "en-
thusiasm," there are indica-
tions that the majority of the
board may also have been in
fluenced in recommending
against the reinstatement of
DR.. Oppenheimer's clearance
by judgments they had formed
as to the nature and quality
of the advice he gave the Acc.
While the majority of the
board stated - with sincerity,
we are sure-that mo man
should be tried for the express
sion of his opinions" it seems
to us that portions Of the ma
jority opinion do just that.
For example, the opinion
says that while the board can
understand "the emotional in
volvement of any scientist who
contributed to the development
of atomic energy and thus
helped to unleash upon the
world a force which could be
destructive of civilization"
nevertheless emotional involve
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Raises Doubts
On Reasoning

To begin with, the major
ity's conclusion not to recon-
mend the reinstatement of DR..
Oppenheimer's clearance
stands in such stark contrast
with the Boards findings re-
garding DR.. Oppenheimer's
loyalty and discretion as to
raise doubts about the process
Of reasoning by which the
conclusion was arrived at. All
members Of the Board agreed:
Cd That the nation owed
scientists "a great debt of
gratitude for loyal and mag
nif1cent service" and that
This Is particularly true with
respect to DR.. Oppenheimer."
(2) That I'VE have before us
much responsible and positive
evidence Of the loyalty and
love Of country Of the indi-
vidual concerned" (p. 21),
and eloquent and convincing
testimony Of DR.. Open
heimer's deep devotion to his
country In recent years and q
multitude Of evidence with re-
spect to active service in all
sorts Of Governmental under
takings to which he was re-
peatedly called as q partici-
pant and as q consultant.."
CD That "even those who
were critical Of DR.. Open
heimer's judgement and ac-
tivities or lack Of activities,
without exception, testified to
their belief In his loyalty. "
90 That I'VE have given
particular attention 70 the
question oG hts loyalty. and
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Questions Comments
On Lack of Cundor

At to the majority's COM
ments about DR.. Oppenheim-
er's alleged lack of "candor"
in several instances in his
testimony" we shall ask the
commission to take special
note. of the observations in
DR.. Evans minority opinion
that while DR.. Oppenheimer's
Statements in cross-examina-
ton show him to be still naive"
they also show him to be "ex-
tremely honest and such
statements work to his bene-
At in my estimation" and that
while Ibis judgement was bad
in some cases" it was most
excellent in others but it is
better now than it was in
1947," when the Atomic En-
ergy Commission unanimously
cleared him.
We shall also direct the
commissions attention to the
fact that the text of the boards
report contains only three
specific references to alleged
lack Of candor. all having to
do with the hydrogen bomb
program. eve should point
out that as to two of these
references DR.. Evans specifl-
cally disassociated himself
from the majority and as to
the other he did so by clear
implication.
AS to all these matters there
was extensive testimony not
only by DR.. Oppenheimer but
also by others who served with
him on the General Advisory
Committee, including DR..
James B. Conant, DR.. I. I.
Rabbi (now chairman Of the
GAC), DR.. Enrico Fermi, and
Mr.. Hartley Rowe of the
United Fruit Co., and also by
DR.. Norris Bradbury CDR. OPP
penheimer'S successor as di-
rector of Los Alamos) by Mr..
Gordon Dean (former chair
man of the Atomic Energy
Commission); by DR.. Hans
Bethe; by DR.. Robert Bacher
"a former member of the
AEC), and by a number Of
other distinguished men.
In brief and argument we
expect to analyze for the
commissions assistance the
evidence they gave. which in
our Judgment bears out the
truth and sincerity of DR..
Oppenheimer's account Of the
H-bomb controversy.
Oppenheimer Denied
Access to Material
We wish to make two more
observations of a general
character. &s1
Evening star., 1954-06-02

First, we trust that the
commission in weighing the
evidence, including the in.
stances Of alleged lack of can
dor. will take into account
certain procedural difficulties
which beset the presentation
Of DR.. Oppenheimer's case.
Weeks before the hearing
commenced we asked you and
the commissions general
counsel for much information
which we thought relevant to
our case, but which was de-
MED us-documents and min
utes concerning DR.. Open
heimer's 1947 clearance and O
variety of other material.
Much of this information
did come out in the hearings,
but usually only in the course
of croSS-examination when
calculated to cause the maxi
mum surprise and confusion
and too late to assist us in
the orderly presentation Of
our case. Some Of the infor.
nation which was denied to US
before the hearing was de-
classified at the moment of
croSS-examination or shortly
before and was made avail.
able to us only during cross
examination or after.
1t is true that DR.. Oppen.
heimer was accorded the priv.
ilege of re-examining, prior to
the hearings, reports and other
material in the preparation Of
which he had participated.
But he was not given access
to the broad range of material
actually used and disclosed for
the first time at the hearings
by the commissions special
counsel who had been retained
for the case. And of course
DR.. Oppenheimer was not given
access to the various docu-
ments which. according to the
boards report under govern
mental necessity cannot be
disclosed, such as reports Of
the Federal Bureau Of Inyesti.
CATION"
The voluminouS nature Of
this undisclosed material ap-
pears from the boards report.
It notes that in our hearings
the board heard 40 witnesses
and compiled over 5000 pages
Of testimony; and we then
learn from the report that "in
addition" the board has read
the same amount Of file ma
terial." We can only specu-
late as to the contents of this
file Smaterial." We cannot
avoid the further speculation
as to how much of this ma.
terial might have been dis
closed to DR.. Oppenheimer In
the interests of justice with
out any real injury to the
security interests Of the Gov.
ernment If established rules Of
exclusion, which the board felt
bound to apply and we to ac-
cept, had not stood in the way.
Urges Consideration
OF Other Factors
Having in mind the difii-
cultieS and handicaps which
have been recounted above,
Continued on Page AS. Col. -
Evening star., 1954-06-02
tcontinued From Page A-e0

alone was that the letter
sought to initiate proceedings
which would impugn q man
on the ground Of his hold
ing and forcefully expressing
strong opinions. It is regret
table that the language Of the
letter or the way in which it
publicly appeared, might have
given any credence to such an
Interpretation. In any event,
the board wishes strongly to
record its profound and posi-
tive view that no man should
be tried for the expression Of
his opinions.
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Child Knocked in River
Still on Critical List

Four-year-old Edward Kehoe
was reported still in critical
condition today at Emergency
Hospital with fractures Of the
skull and pelvis and abdominal
injuries suffered when he was
knocked into the Potomac River
at Hams Point Sunday by q
careening automobile.
The son Of Mr.. and Mrs.
Edward T. Kehoe, 3712 Morrison
street NV, was mot doing too
wel1," the hospital said. He was
In q cast as Q result of q frac-
tured eollarbone ct the time Of
the accident
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Conclusions Held
: Contrary to Facts

In the case of the third con-
sideration-Dr. Oppenheimer's
so-called disturbing conduct in
the hydrogen bomb program
the boards unanimous findings
OF fact again stand in stark
contrast with the conclusion
OF the majority. Thus the
board unanimously found:
I'd That DR.. Oppenheimer's
opposition to the H-bomb
program involved no lack of
loyalty to the United States or
attachment to the Soviet
Union"
90 That his opinions re-
garding the development Of
the H-bomb were shared by
competent and devoted in
d1viduals, both in and out Of
Government"
CD That it could be as
sumed that these opinions
were motivated by deep moral
conviction"
90 That after the national
policy to proceed with the de-
velopmsnt Of the H-bomb had
been determined In January.
1850, he did not oppose the
project in q positive or open
manner. nor did he decline to
Cooperate in the project"
60 That the allegation that
he urged other scientists not
to work on the hydrogen bomb
program was unfounded.
t6) That he did not, as al
legged. distribute copies of the
General Advisory Report to
key personnel with q view to
turning them against the
project. but that on the con-
trary this distribution was
made ct the Commissions
own direction.
IN abort, an the haaie al,e.
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Double Jeopardy
Principle Cited

We don't have to go out Of
our way and invent something
to prove that the principle of
double jeopardy" does not
apply here. This is not our
function, and it is not our
function to rewrite any clear
ance rules. The fact remains
he is being investigated twice
for the same things. Further
more, we don't have to dig
deeply to find other ways that
he may be a security risk out
side of loyalty, character and
association. He is loyal, we
agree on that. There is, in my
estimation, nothing wrong with
his character. During the early
years of his life, DR.. Open
heimer devoted himself to
study and did not vote or be-
come interested in political
matters until he was almost
80. Then, in his ignorance, he
embaced many Subversive or
ganizations.
His judgment was bad In
some cases, and most excellent
in others but, in my estima-
ton, 1t is better now than it
was in 1947, and to damn him
now and ruin his career and
his service. I cannot do it.
His statements in cross ex-
animation show him to be still
naive. but extremely honest
and such statements work to
his benefit in my estimation.
All people are somewhat of a
security risk. I don't think we
have to go out Of our way to
point out how this man might
be a seucrity risk.
DR.. Oppenheimer in one
place in his Testimony said
that he had told "a tissue of
lies" What he had said was
not a tissue of lies; there was
one lie. He said on one occa-
sion that he had not heard
from DR.. Seaborg, when in fact
he had a letter from DR.. Sea-
borg. In my opinion he had
forgotten about the letter or
he would never have made this
statement for he would have
known that the Government
had the letter. I do not con-
slider that he lied in this case.
He stated that he would have
recommended David Bohm as
a physicist to Brazil, if asked.
DR.. Oppenheimer was not
asked if he would have added
. that Bohm was a Communist.
In recent years he went to see
Chevalier in Paris. I don't like
this, but I cannot condemn
him on this ground. I don't like
his about face in the matter of
DR.. Peters. but I don't think
1t SubSerSive or diSloyal.
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Invites Attention
To Two Incidents

We would like, however, to
draw attention to two Of the
incidents referred to by the
majority in support of these
considerations, merely to indi-
cate the care with which we.
think the record needs to be
reviewed by the commission.
The majority held it against
DR.. Oppenheimer. apparently
as an example of his supposed
susceptibility to influence, that
despite a severe attack on him
by DR.. Edward Condor in 1949,
in a letter which appeared in
the press. DIR. Oppenheimer is
now prepared to support DR..
Condor in the latter's pending
loyalty investigation. It seems
to us strange that a man should
be criticized for refusing to let
his personal feelings stand in
the way Of his giving evidence
on behalf Of a man he believes
to be loyal. The majority fur
ther criticized DR.. Open
heimer for his continuing as
sociationS and supposed dis
regard Of security requirements
in that Gin 1916 or 1947 he
assisted David Bohm "a former
Student) in getting a position
at Princeton and, at least on
a casual basis, continued his
associations with Bohm after
he had reason to know of
Bohm's security status. He tes-
titled that today he would give
Bohm a letter of recommended
ton as a physicistS and, al
though not asked whether he
would also raise questions about
Bohm's security status, he in
no way indicated that this was
. matter of serious import to
him." DR.. Evans comment on
this incident was: II think I
would have recommended
Bohm as q physicist. DR.. OPP
penheimer was not asked If he
would have added that Bohm
was q Communist"
We propose to analyZe in
detail, in brief and argument,
these and other incidents re-
ferred to by the majority as
bearing on DR.. Oppenheimer's
supposed disregard" for the
security system" and "sus-
ceptibility to influence"
The third and fourth con-
siderations advanced by the
majority for concluding that
DR.. Oppenheimer was q "secur-
ity risk" warrant more ex-
tended comment here.
The third item-Dr. Open
heimer's conduct in the
hydrogen bomb program"
characterized as disturbing"
and the fourth - alleged
"lack Of candor" in several
instances in his testimony
require discussion, because they
involve questions of policy and
procedure which we wish par
tlcularly to draw to the COM
missions attention in a
primary Wav
Evening star., 1954-06-02

we have come to q clear con-
clusion, which should be re-
assuring to the people Of this
country, that he is a loyal
citizen. If this were the only
consideration, therefore, we
would recommend that the re-
instatement of his clearance
would not be a danger to the
common defense and security"
(5) That "It must be said
that DR.. Oppenheimer seems
to have had a high degree Of
discretion rejecting an un-
usual ability to keep to him
self vital secrets"
In spite of these findings of
loyalty and of discretion in
the handling of classified data,
the majority of the board
reached the conclusion that
DIR. Oppenheimer's clearance
should not be reinStated.
How can this be? The ma
jority advanced four consid-
erations as controlling in lead
Ing them to their conclusion.
The first two-an alleged
serious disregard for the re-
quirements of the security
system" and an alleged "sus-
ceptibility to infuence"-rest
upon an appraisal of the evi-
dence which we do not think
Is justified by the record.
Taking sharp issue, as we do,
with the majority's treatment
OF the incidents cited in sup
port Of these two considera-
tions, we cannot undertake
here to review the detailed
evidence. but propose to do so
in the brief.
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Sees Board Taking
Restrictive Stand

It would appear from the
following passage about DR..
Oppenheimer'S advice that the
majority Of the board as
Sumed affirmative answers to
both Of the foregoing ques-
tionS:
1--WE are concerned, however,
that he may have departed
his role as scientific adviser to
exercise highly persuasive in
f1uence in matters in which
his convictions were not neces-
sarily q reflection of technical
judgment, and also not neces-
Sarily related to the protec-
ton Of the strongest offensive
military interests Of the coun-
try"
This poses a serious issue.
If a scientist whose loyalty is
unquestioned may nevertheless
be considered a security risk
because in the judgment of a
board he may have given ad-
vice which did not necessarily
reflect a bare technical judg-
ment, or which did not accord
with strategical considerations
of a particular kind, then he
is being condemned for his
opinions.
Surely our security requires
that expert views, so long as
they are honest, be weighed
and debated and not that they
be barred.
We quite agree with the
Boards view that, because the
loyalty or security risk status
of a scientist or any other in
tellectual may be brought into
question, scientists and intel
lectuals are ill-adviSed to as
sert that a reasonable and sane
inquiry constitutes an attack
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Oppenhemer Appeals Security Board Finding Directly to AEc

no one on the board doubts his
loyalty-even the witnesses ad-
verse to him admit that-and
he is certainly less Of a secur-
ity risk than he was in 1947.
when he was cleared. To deny
him clearance now for what
he was cleared for in 1947,
when we must know he is less
Of security risk now than he
was then. seems to be hardly
the procedure to be adopted in
a free country.
Evening star., 1954-06-02
Scientists Counsel
Cites Stark Contrast
In Majority Report

Following Is the tert of At
torney Lloyd X. GGrriSon's
letter to the Atomic Energy
Commission requesting per-
mission to appeal the Security
Boards findings against DR..
J. Robert Oppenheimer direct
ly to the Acc:
Gen. K. D. Nichols,
General Manager,
U. S. Atomic Energy Commits
sion,
Washington Is, D. c.,
Dear Gen. Nichols:
DR.. Oppenheimer has re-
ceived your letter Of May %,
1854, in which you enclosed q
copy Of the Findings and
Recommendation of the Per-
sonpel Security Board" dated
May 81. In this document the
board unanimously found that
DR.. Oppenheimer was a loyal
citizen. but by q 2 to / vote,
DR.. Ward v. Evans dissenting,
recommended that DR.. Open
heimer's clearance should not
be reinstated. DR.. Open
heimer has asked me to send
you this reply on his behalf.
You informed DR.. Open
heimer that he might have
until June z to notify the
commission whether he would
request q review of the case
by the commissions Personnel
Security Review Board. You
also informed him that, after
considering the record Gnclud-
ing the recommendation Of the
review board if a review were
taken). you would make your
recommendation to the COM
mission and the commission
would finally determine the
matter.
Since the commission is in
any event to decide the case,
1t seems to us that no useful
purpose would be served by
our requestiong the Review
Board to 60 over the matter
afresh and to make q recon-
mendation that would have
no more finality to it than
that which the Personnel Sc
curity Board has already
made
Evening star., 1954-06-02

upon scientists and intellect
uals generally" This state
ment. however, begs the funda-
mental question as to what are
the appropriate limits of a Sc
curity inquiry under existing
statutes and regulations, and
under a government Of laws
and not of men-a question of
concern not merely to scien-
fists and intellectuals but to all
our people.
Evening star., 1954-06-02

of this sort In the current
crisis must yield to the Sc
curity Of the Nation; aud
Government officials "who are
responsible for the security Of
the country must be certain
that the advice which they
seriously seek appropriately
reflects special competence on
the one hand, and soundly
based conviction on the other.
uncolored and uninfluenced by
considerations of an emotional
character" Does this mean
that a loyal scientist called to
advise his Government does
so at his peril unless. contrary
to all experience, he can guar
antee that his views are unaf-
fected by his heart and his
spirit?
The opinion further stated
that defense officials must
also be certain that underly-
ing any advice is q genuine
conviction that this country
cannot in the interest of secu-
rity have less than the strong
est possible offensive capabili-
ties in a time Of national
danger" Does this mean that
a loyal scientist called to ad-
wise his government does so
at his peril if he happens to
believe in the wisdom Of main
tanning a proper balance be-
tween offensive and defensive
weapons?
Evening star., 1954-06-02
(s) THOMAS A. MORGAN.

FOLLOWING Is the tert of the
minority report OF Dr.. Ward
EUGnS:
I have reached the con-
clusion that DR.. j. Robert
Oppenheimer's clearanc e
should be reinstated and am
submitting q minority report
in accordance with Acc pro-
cedure.
The board. appointed by
the Commission, has worked
long and arduously on the
Oppenheimer case. We have
heard 40 witnesses and have
taken some 5000 pages of
testimony IN addition to hav-
ing read a similar number of
pages Of file material. We
have examined carefully the
notification letter to DR.. OPP
penheimer from Mr.. Nichols
Of December %, 1858, and all
other relevant material.
I am in perfect agreement
with the majority report Of
its findings" with respect to
the allegations in Mr.. Nichols
letter and I am in agreement
with the statement of the
Board concerning the sugnifi-
canoe of its findings" to the
end of page 80 Cup to asterisk
in copy above). I also agree
with the last paragraph of
this section in which the board
makes a final comment on Mr..
Nichols letter. I do not, how
ever, think it necessary to 60
into any philosophical discus
sion to prove points not found
In Mr.. Nichols letter.
The derogatory information
In this letter consisting of ~
items has all been substan-
tiated except for one item.
This refers to q Communist
meeting held in DR.. Open
heimer's home, which he il
supposed to have attended.
On the basis Of this finding,
the board would have to say
that DR.. Oppenheimer should
not be cleared.
But this Is not all.
Most Of this derogatory in
formation was in the hands of
the Commission when DR.. OPP
penheimer was cleared in 1947.
They apparently were aware
Of his associations and his
left-wing policies; yet they
cleared him. They took q
chance on him because Of his
special talents and he contin-
ued to do Q good job. Now
when the job is done, we are
asked to investigate him for
practically the same derog-
Atory information. He did his
job Ia q thorough and pain
stalking manner. There Is not
the slightest vestigte Of infor-
nation before this board that
would indicate that DR.. OPP
penheimer Is not q loyal citi-
zen Of his country. He hates
Russia. He had communistic
friends. it Is true. He still has
some. However, the evidence
indicates that he has fewer
Of them than he had In 1947.
He is not as naive ~ he was
then. He has more Judgment;