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

and to uphold the decision Of
the general manager. Clearance
should be denied to DR.. Open
heimer.
Murray Joins in Support
OF Majority Opinion
Partial tert of a separate
concurring opinion By Com
missioner Murray:
I concur in the conclusion Of
the majority of the Commission
that DR.. j. Robert Oppenheimer's
access to restricted data should
be denied. However, I have
reached this conclusion by my
own reasoning which does not
coincide with the majority Of the
Commission. Therefore, I sub
NIT my separate opinion.
In my opinion the Personnel
Security Board report and the
recommendations of the general
manager as well as the majority
opinion do not correctly interpret
the evidence in the case. They
do not do justice to certain i'm
portant principles. What is more
important they do not meet
squarely the primary issue which
the cases raises.
The primary issue is the mean
ing of loyalty. I shall define this
concept concretely within the
conditions created by the pres
ent crisis of national and inter-
national security. When loyalty
is thus concretely defined and
when all the evidence is carefully
considered in the light of this
definition, it will be evident that
DR.. Oppenheimer was disloyal.
There is a preliminary ques-
ton. It concerns DR.. Open
heimer's opposition to the hydro
gen bomb program and his in
fuence on the development of
the program. On this count 1
do not find evidence that would
warrant the denial to DR.. Open
heimer of a security clearance.
Judgment in Error.
I find that the record clearly
proves that DR.. OppenheimS'e
judgment was in error in several
respects. 1t may well be that the
security interests of the United
States were adversely affected in
consequence of his judgment.
But it would be unwiSe, unjust,
and dangerous to admit, as a
principle, that errors of judg-
ment, especially in complicated
situations, can furnish valid
grounds for later indictments of
a mans loyalty, character, or
status as a security risk. 1t has
happened before in the long his
tory of the United States that the
national interests were damaged
by errors of Judgment committed
by Americans in positions of re-
sponsibility. But these men did
not for this reason cease to merit
the trust of their country.
DR.. Oppenheimer advanced
technical and political reasons
for his attitude to the hydrogen
bomb program. In both respects
he has been proved wrong; moth
ing further need be said. o.
He also advanced moral rea-
sons. Here two comments are
necessary. First, in deciding
matters of national policy it is
imperative that the views of ex-
pertS should always be carefully
weighed and never barred from
discussion or treated lightly.
However, DR.. Oppenheimer's
opinions in the field of morality
possess no special authority.
Second, even though DR.. Open
heimer is not an expert in mo-
rality, he was quite right in adj
vancing moral reasons for his
attitude to the hydrogen bomb
program. The scientist is a man
before he is a technician. Like
every man, he ought to be alert
to the moral issues that arise in
the course of his work. This
alertness is part of his general
human and civic responsibilities,
which go beyond his responsible
tiles as a scientist. When he has
moral doubts, he has a right to
voice them. Furthermore, it must
be firmly maintained, as a prin-
ciple both of justice and of re-
ligious freedom, that opposition
to governmental policies, based
on sincerely held moral opinions,
need not make a man a security
risk.
The issue of DR.. Oppenheim-
er'S lack of enthusiasm for the
hydrogen bomb program has
been raised; so too has the issue
of his failure to communicate
to other scientists his abandon
ment Of his earlier opposition to
the program. Here an important
is in order. Govern
ment may command a citizens
service in the national interest.
But government cannot COM
mand a citizens enthusiasm for
any particular program or pol
icy projected in the national in
terests. The citizen remains free
to be enthusiastic or not at the
impulse of his own inner con-
victions. These convictions re-
main always immune from gov
judgment or control.
Lack of enthusiasm is not a
juSticiable matter.
The conclusion is that the evil
1ence with regard to DR.. Open
1eimer'S attitude toward the
hydrogen bomb program. when
It is rightly interpreted in the
light of sound democratic prin-
;ipleS, does not warrant the de-
NAL to DR.. Oppenheimer Of a
clearance.
Loyalty Is Main Question.
The primary question con-
,erns DR.. Oppenheimer's loyalty.
IL L. l.