Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1954-06-30
Commissioners
Discuss Ban on
Access 10 Secrets

VIS&USS UUu VII
Access 10 Secrets
The teri OF the majority
opinion in the Oppenheimer
case by Chairman Strauss and
Commissioners Zuckert and
Campbell tollot0S:
The issue before the Commits
sion is whether the security Of
the United States warrants DR..
j. Robert Oppenheimer's con-
tinued access to restricted data
of the Atomic Energy Commits
sion. The data to which DR.. OPP
penheimer has had until recent
ly full access include some OF
the most vital secrets in the pos
session of the United States.
Having carefully studied the
pertinent documents-the tram
script of the hearings before the
Personnel Security Board (Gray
board), the findings and recon-
.mendation of the board, the
briefs of DR.. Oppenheimer'S
counsel, and the findings and
recommendation of the general
manager - we have concluded
that DR.. Oppenheimer'S clear
ance for access to restricted data
should not be reinstated.
The Atomic Energy Act of
1916 lays upon the Commission
ers the duty to reach a determi-
nation as to "the character, GSSo-
Citations, and loyalty" of the in
dividuals engaged in the work of
the Commission. Thus, disloyalty
would be one basis for disqual-
ification, but it is only one. Sub
stantial defects Of character and
imprudent and dangerous asSo-
Citations, particularly with known
subverSiveS who place the inter-
ests of foreign powers above
those of the United States, are
also reasons for disqualification.
Vote of No Confidence.
On the basis of the record be-
fore the Commission, compris-
ing the transcript of the hear
ing before the Gray board as
well as reports of military intel
ligence and the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, we find DR.. OPP
penheimer is not entitled to the
continued confidence of the Gov
eminent and of this Commission
because of the proof of funda-
mental defects in his "charac-
ter"
In respect to the criterion of
Associations" we find that his
associations with persons known
to him to be Communists have
extended far beyond the toler-
able limits of prudence and
Self-reStraint which are to be
expected of one holding the high
positions that the Government
has continuously entrusted to
him since 1912. These -associa-
tions have lasted too long to be
justified as merely the intermit-
tent and accidental revival of
earlier friendships.
Entitled to H-Bomb Opinion.
Neither in the deliberations by
the full Commission nor in the
review of the Gray board was
Importance attached to the opin-
ions of DR.. Oppenheimer as they
bore upon the l949 debate within
the Government of whether the
United States should proceed
with the thermometer weapon
program. In this debate DR.. OPP
penheimer was, of course, en-
titled to his opinion.
The fundamental issues here
are apart from and beyond this
episode. The history of their de-
velopment is as follows:
On December %, 1858, DR.. OPP
penheimer was notified that his
security clearance had been Sus-
pended, and he was provided
with the allegations which had
brought his trustworthiness into
question. He was also furnished
with copy of the Atomic Energy
Commissions security clearance
and was informed of
his right to a hearing under
those procedures. BY telegram
dated January %, 1854, DR.. OPP
penheimer. requested a hearing.
On March 4, 1854, after request
ing and receiving three extern
sions of time, he submitted his
answer to the letter of December
%, 1858. On March Is, 1854, DR..
Oppenheimer was informed that
Mr.. Gordon Gray. Mr.. Thomas A.
Morgan and DIR. Ward V. Evans
would conduct the hearing.
Gray Board Hearing.
The hearing before the Gray
board commenced on April IL,
1854. and continued through May
6, 1854. DR.. Oppenheimer was
represented by four lawyers. He
was present to confront all wit
neSses; he had the opportunity
to cross-examine all witnesses;
his counsel made both oral and
writtensargument to the board.
The board submitted its find
ings and recommendation to the
general manager of the Com
mission on May q, 1854. A ma
jority of the board recommended
against reinstatement of clear
ance, DR.. Evans dissenting.
Dr.. Oppenheimer had full adj
vantage of the security proceed
ures of the Commission. In our
opinion he had a just hearing.
Adverse Recommendation.
On May %, 1854, the general
manager notified DR.. Open
heimer of the adverse recon-
mendation of the Personnel Sc
curity Board and forwarded to
him a copy of the boards find
ings and recommendation. The
general manager informed DR..
Oppenheimer of his right to re-
quest review of his case by the