Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-06-30

| HENRI ID SMx In
of nuclear weapons stands I'M
furnished.
It is clear that DR.. Open
heimer'S past associations and
activities are not newly diScov-
cred in any substantial sense.
They have been known for years
to responsible authorities who
have never been persuaded that
they rendered DR.. Oppenheimer
unfit for public service. Many
of the country'S outstanding
men have expressed their faith
in his integrity.
In spite of all this, the ma
jority of the Commission now
concludes that DR.. Oppenheimer
is a security risk. I cannot &C
cept this conclusion or the fear
behind it. In my opinion the
conclusion cannot be supported
by a fair evaluation of the evi-
dence.
Those who do not accept this
view Gull from the record of DR..
Oppenheimer'S active life over
the past Is years incidents
which they conStrue as proof
Of fundamental defects in his
character" and as alarming as
sociationS. I shall summarize
the evidence on these incidents
in order that their proper sig
nificance may be seen.
Chevalier incident. The most
disturbing incidents of his past
are those connected with Haakon
Chevalier. In late 1912 or early
1943, Chevalier was asked by
George Eltenton to approach DR..
Oppenheimer to see whether he
would be willing to make techni-
cal information available for the
Soviet Union. When Chevalier
spoke to DR.. Oppenheimer he was
answered by a fiat refusal. The
incident came to light when DR..
Oppenheimer, of his own accord,
reported it to Col. Pash in Au-
gust, 1913. He did not at that
time give Chevalier's name and
said that there had been three
approaches rather than one.
Shortly thereafter, in early Sep
TENDER, Dr. Oppenheimer told
Gen. Groves that, if ordered, he
would reveal the name. Not I'M
til December, 1913, did Gen.
Groves direct him to give the
name. It is his testimony that
he then told Gen. Groves that
the earlier story concerning
three approaches had been
cock and bull story" Not until
1916 were Eltenton, Chevalier
and DR.. Oppenheimer himself
interviewed by security officers
in this matter. When interviewed
by the FBI in 1916, DR.. Open
heimer recounted the same story
of the incident which he has
consistently maintained ever
since. He stated explicitly in
1916 that the story told to Col.
Pash in 1943 had been a fabri-
cation. In the present hearings
before the Gray board he testi-
fled, before the recording of the
PaSh interview was produced,
that the story told to Col. Pash
was a fabrication to protect his
friend Chevalier. The letter
which he wrote Chevalier in Feb
ruary. 1850, concerning Cheval-
ier'S role in the 1913 incident,
stated only what DR.. Open
heimer has consistently main
tanned to the FBI and to the
Gray board concerning Cheval-
ier's lack Of awareness of the
significance Of what he was do
ing.
'TnexcuSabIe."
The Chevalier incident in
volved temporary concealment
of an espionage attempt and adj
mitted lying, and is inexcuSable.
But that was IL years ago; there
is no subsequent act even family
similar; DR.. Oppenheimer has
repeatedly expressed his shame
and regret and has stated fatty
that he would never again so
act. My conclusion is that of Mr..
Hartley Rowe, who testified, "I
think a man Of DR.. Oppenheim-
er'S character is not going to
make the same mistake twice"
DR.. Oppenheimer states that
he still considers Chevalier his
friend, although he sees him
rarely. In 1850 Just before
Chevalier left this country to
take up residence in France, he
visited DR.. Oppenheimer for two
days in Princeton; in December,
1858, DR.. Oppenheimer visited
with the Chevaliers in Paris at
their invitation. These isolated
visits may have been unwise, but
there is no evidence that they
had any security significance.
Chevalier was not sought out by
DR.. Oppenheimer in Paris but,
rather. the meeting was proposed
by the Chevaliers in a letter to
Mrs. Oppenheimer. The contact
consisted Of o dinner and, on
the following day. driving with
Chevalier to meet Andre NAL
raux, the famous French literary