Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-06-30
Reason Given for Denial Of Clearance

tent denial that he was ever q
Communist.
DR.. Oppenheimer has been re-
peatedly Intercepted from 1913
on concerning his associations
and activities. Beyond the one
admitted falsehood told in the
Chevalier incident. the volumi-
nous record shows q few con-
Predictions between statements
purportedly made in 1943 and
subsequent recollectionS during
interrogationS in 1850 and 1854.
The charges of talSehood con-
corning Weinberg and Lambert
relate to such contributions, and
are dependent on a garbled tran
script. In my opinion, these con-
traditions have been given I'M
due significance.
Peters Letter. I find it diff
cult to conclude that the letter
written by DR.. Oppenheimer in
1949 following his testimony
about DR.. Bernard Peters before
a Congressional committee is
evidence of any fault in charac-
ter. This carefully composed
letter. q copy Of which was sent
TO the Congressional committee.
was not an attempt to repudiate
the testimony relating to DR..
Peters background but, rather.
was a manifestation of a belief
that political views should not
a scientist from a
teaching job. He was led to
this action by the protests of
DR.. Bethe, DR.. WeisSkopf. and
DR.. Peters himself, and of DR..
Condor, and by the "overwhelm-
ing belief Of the community in
which I lived that a man like
hat ought not to be fired either
for his past or for his views.
unless that past is criminal or
the views led him to wicked
actions" One might disagree
with this belief without taking
t as evidence Of untrustworthi-
ness.
Led Into Contradictions.
LOmanitz Deferment. It is
clear that in crOSS-eXamination
n 1854, DR.. Oppenheimer was
ed into contradictions concern
ng the induction into the Army
If Rossi Lomanitz in 1913. These
contradictions. understandable as
errors Of memory, are serious
only if DR.. Oppenheimer's be-
havior at that time was i'm
proper. Actually, DR.. Open
1eimer's letter to Col. Lansdale
n 1943 says: "Since I am not
n possession Of the facts which
ed to Mr.. Lomanitz's induction,
am, Of course, not able to en-
1orSe this request in an absolute
way. I can, however, say that
Mr.. Lomanitz's competence and
mis- past experience on the work
n Berkeley should make him q
nan of real value whose techni-
;al service we should make every
effort to secure for the project"
The letter was sent to Col. Lans-
dale, the man to whom DIR.
Oppenheimer had given infor-
nation on Lomanitz' Communist
aff1liation and the man who had
odd DR.. Oppenheimer that Lo-
nanitz had been indiscreet with
Obstruction Of Security Off,
;ers. The majority opinion cites
he Chevalier incident as an
instance of obstruction of secur-
ty officers and states without
specification that there are
other instances. I have sought
20 identify these other instances.
The only instance I have found
s a refusal by DR.. Oppenheimer
n 1850 to answer FBI questions
about DR.. Thomas Adds and DIR.
Jean Tatlock on the ground that
hey were dead and could not
defend themselves. This retic-
ence to discuss the activities of
\ friend and Of a former fiance
years after their deaths may
nave been an error. But in the
circumstances, it seems under
;tandable hesitation, and does
1ot indicate a persistent "willful
disregard" of security.
View in SeabOrg Letter.
Seaborg Letter. Before the
October. 1949. meeting of the
General Advisory Committee at
which the H-bomb program was
discussed. DR.. Seaborg, a mem
Der of the General Advisory
Committee, who was unable to be
sent DR.. Oppenheimer
! letter on the topics to be dis
;usSed. In DR.. Oppenheimer's
etter to the commission report
ng the unanimous view of the
eight members present at the
General Advisory Committee
Meeting, there is no mention of
Dr.. Seaborg's views. It is hard
20 see how DR.. Oppenheimer
Gould have forgotten the letter,
out it is still harder to see what
purpose he could have hoped to
by Intentionally sup
it-and then turning it
over to the commission in his
lies. At the next meeting of the
General Advisory Committee in
December, 1949, the action of the
October meeting was reviewed,
Ind the minutes show that DR..
5eaborg raised no objection. It
seems likely that DR.. Seaborg
himself did mt corocidn~ that 10