it there are many men and women, perhaps oversensitive by nature, is above reproach, who cannot live and work happily in an atpicion as the victims of constant espionage. That such a of abuse and that outrageous abuses have actually occurred », myself " enough reports of security officers and dealt instice, to have some idea of what a system its matter, Mr. Rauh? This was called to my attention, I was treI had recalled that some years ago the on had issued some regulation or statement og on one's fellow employees. I remember Case a statement on the floor attacking the reguwithdrawn. Maybe possibly you remember that, That there was such a statement. 1 Yes. 1. It seems to me that the committee ought to go into by a formal communication to the State Department in I just don't think you get the best out of people that i think you get the best out of people by having the most trust in them and I think that this kind of a thing, if true, must ely affect the Foreign Service. I think maybe you will recall, tor, some years ago when Mr. Joseph Grew and four other disguished ex-diplomats-Mr. Grew, you recall, was the Ambassador to Japan, I think, at the time the war started-wrote about the difficulties in the Foreign Service and some of the handicaps that then came from the various security programs. I think some of the people who signed that letter, Mr. Slayman, besides Mr. Grew, might be available to give you information. I would certainly urge the subcommittee to check into this. There may not be anything in it. However, a man wrote a serious letter making this statement. I certainly would hope that it would be looked at. I don't see that this man had an ax to grind from reading his letter. On its face, it looks like the writing of a man who was concerned with a serious problem in American life, and I would hope that in one way or another the subcommittee would find out the facts, and I am sure that the able staff will try to do that. Senator HRUSKA. You would be in favor of confrontation of that witness before the committee and a little cross-examination and some documentation? Mr. RAUH. Yes, sir. Before the committee should accept that, just as much as when investigating anything else. I am not asking the committee to accept anything on our side without full procedures as I would expect to have put on the other side. Senator HRUSKA. You have made that plain. I surely wouldn't think and no one would contend by that declaration that he would just let anybody go in the Foreign Service without some due regard for security and for loyalty and for faithfulness to our Government. Mr. RAUH. The problem is one of balance as you so well said. I think the balance lies with confrontation. I hope if the committee goes into this and gets the administration witnesses up here, something can be worked out that will be satisfactory to all of us. men, many of whom have little capacity for anything else, have ceased the practices which they were originally organized to perform. I know that desks were periodically searched; that private correspondence, even while going through the mails, was opened and read; that telephones were tapped; that servants were asked to spy upon their employers; that secretaries were asked to report upon the men for whom they worked; and that Foreign Service officers were asked to make a practice of spying upon and reporting anonymously upon their colleagues. I do not know whether it is true or not, but it is very generally supposed that listening devices were installed far and wide in offices and presumably also in private homes. It must be emphasized that these activities were directed, not against persons individually suspected of disloyalty, but were directed against the generality of officers and employees in the Foreign Service and in the Department of State. It was widely believed, and I think correctly, that much of the information collected by these nefarious means was used for purposes that had no relation to the loyalty and security program. It was said that only the guilty would suffer and that the innocent had nothing to fear, but there are many men and women, perhaps oversensitive by nature, whose virtue is above reproach, who cannot live and work happily in an atmosphere of suspicion as the victims of constant espionage. That such a system is susceptible of abuse and that outrageous abuses have actually occurred cannot be denied. I have myself, in the performance of duty, seen enough reports of security officers and dealt with enough cases of outrageous injustice to have some idea of what a system of this kind accomplishes. The whole loyalty and security program in the Department of State should be carefully and radically reformed. A principal feature of this reform should be a careful tabulation of the men and women who have left the Foreign Service during these last years: How many were dismissed for due cause? How many were dismissed unjustly and should be reinstated? How many resigned because they could not afford to continue in the Service? How many resigned because they would not tolerate the espionage to which they were subjected? The answers to these questions would, I am sure, produce some highly significant material. The reform should involve not only changes in spirit and practice, but also the replacement of such personnel as has demonstrated and sometimes expressed its belief that Democrat, New Dealer, Radical, Socialist, Leftist, Com. munist, and subversive are synonymous terms. Mr. SLAYMAN. On page 51, "security procedures in the Department of State." The study states: State Department security procedures were scathingly condemned in one letter which described a rather frightening all-pervasive apparatus which constantly checks both the public and private lives of State Department personnel. Then they print an excerpt of that letter and I will read only a portion of the excerpt: I know that desks were periodically searched, private correspondence, even while going through the mails, was opened and read, telephones were tapped, servants were asked to spy upon their employers, secretaries were asked to report upon the men for whom they worked. Foreign Service officers were asked to make a practice of spying upon and reporting anonymously upon their colleagues. I do not know whether it is true, but it is very generally supposed that listening devices were installed far and wide in offices and presumably also in private homes. It must be emphasized that these activities were directed, not against persons individually suspected of disloyalty, but were directed against the generality of officers and employees in the Foreign Service and the Department of State. It was widely believed, and I think correctly I am quoting that much of the information collected by these nefarious means, was used for purposes that had no relation to the loyalty and security program. It was said that only the guilty would suffer and that the innocent had nothing to fear, but there are many men and women, perhaps oversensitive by nature, whose virtue is above reproach, who cannot live and work happily in an atmosphere of suspicion as the victims of constant espionage. That such a system is susceptible of abuse and that outrageous abuses have actually occurred cannot be denied. I have, myself— I am still quoting in the performance of duty, seen enough reports of security officers and dealt with enough cases of outrageous injustice, to have some idea of what a system of this kind accomplishes. Do you have a comment on this matter, Mr. Rauh? Mr. RAUH. Yes, when this was called to my attention, I was tremendously shocked by it. I had recalled that some years ago the Civil Service Commission had issued some regulation or statement that called for reporting on one's fellow employees. I remember Senator Lehman made a statement on the floor attacking the regulation and it was withdrawn. Maybe possibly you remember that, too, Mr. Slayman, that there was such a statement. Mr. SLAYMAN. Yes. Mr. RAUH. It seems to me that the committee ought to go into this matter by a formal communication to the State Department in this regard. I just don't think you get the best out of people that way. I think you get the best out of people by having the most trust you can in them and I think that this kind of a thing, if true, must adversely affect the Foreign Service. I think maybe you will recall, Senator, some years ago when Mr. Joseph Grew and four other distinguished ex-diplomats-Mr. Grew, you recall, was the Ambassador to Japan, I think, at the time the war started-wrote about the difficulties in the Foreign Service and some of the handicaps that then came from the various security programs. I think some of the people who signed that letter, Mr. Slayman, besides Mr. Grew, might be available to give you information. I would certainly urge the subcommittee to check into this. There may not be anything in it. However, a man wrote a serious letter making this statement. I certainly would hope that it would be looked at. I don't see that this man had an ax to grind from reading his letter. On its face, it looks like the writing of a man who was concerned with a serious problem in American life, and I would hope that in one way or another the subcommittee would find out the facts, and I am sure that the able staff will try to do that. Senator HRUSKA. You would be in favor of confrontation of that witness before the committee and a little cross-examination and some documentation? Mr. RAUH. Yes, sir. Before the committee should accept that, just as much as when investigating anything else. I am not asking the committee to accept anything on our side without full procedures as I would expect to have put on the other side. Senator HRUSKA. You have made that plain. I surely wouldn't think and no one would contend by that declaration that he would just let anybody go in the Foreign Service without some due regard for security and for loyalty and for faithfulness to our Government. Mr. RAUH. The problem is one of balance as you so well said. I think the balance lies with confrontation. I hope if the committee goes into this and gets the administration witnesses up here, something can be worked out that will be satisfactory to all of us. Senator HRUSKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Rauh. Now then, that will conclude the hearings this morning. It is the hope of the Senator from Nebraska, acting chairman of this committee, that in due time we will get the views of some members of the Commission on Government Security who wrote that 800-page report which was issued a couple of years ago. Mr. SLAYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I talked to Loyd Wright long distance and he would like to be available to the subcommittee at a mutually agreeable time. Senator HRUSKA. I am very gratified to hear that. I think we can hear with profit also, if they are so disposed, from Senator Cotton and Senator Thurmond, who were both on that committee, as well as the entire House counterparts who represented the Congress on that Commission. The subcommittee meeting will be recessed subject to the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee recessed.) (Subsequently, the chairman ordered that the following materials be printed, without objection, in the record and the appendix of this hearing :) I. Announcements of these hearings: (a) May 25, 1959: public statement by Senator Hennings. (b) June 25, 1959: Congressional Record, volume 105, No. 106 (daily edition), page 10777: notice in the record of Senate proceedings. II. Texts of selected Court decisions: (a) William L. Greene v. McElroy, et al., 360 U.S. 474; decided June 29, 1959. (b) Charles Allen Taylor v. McElroy, et al., 360 U.S. 709; decided June 29, 1959. (c) William Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535; decided June 1, 1959. III. Tables of contents of hearings conducted on Security and Constitutional Rights, by the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, in 1955 and 1956: (a) Part I-1955. (b) Part II-1956. IV. Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee staff memorandums: (a) June 17, 1959: The industrial personnel security review program and comments thereon by the "Wright" Commission. (b) July 1, 1959: The "Attorney General's List" of proscribed organizations, together with a copy of the latest such list. V. Senate bills in the 86th Congress (1959): (a) S. 776, sponsored by Senator Butler. (b) S. 1916, sponsored by Senators Stennis and Cotton. (c) S. 2314, sponsored by Senator Thurmond. (d) S. 2392, sponsored by Senators Johnston and Eastland. VI. Regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission regarding security clearance procedures. VII. Regulations of the Department of Defense, for Industrial Personnel Security Review. VIII. Regulations of the Attorney General on designation of organizations. IX. June 25, 1959: Statement by Senator Hennings regarding status of William V. Vitarelli. X. Law review article by Robert B. McKay, "The Right of Confrontation," Washington University Law Quarterly, volume 1959, No. 2 (April 1959); Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. IX. Article by Eugene V. Rostow, "Needed, a Rational Security Program," Harper's magazine, July 1957. XII. Briefs for the parties in the cases of Greene v. McElroy and Taylor v. McElroy, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, October term, 1958. APPENDIX EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN THOMAS C. HENNINGS, JR., AND ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM P. ROGERS JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, U.S. SENATE, Washington D.C., June 30, 1959. Hon. WILLIAM P. ROGERS, DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is to invite you, as an interested Government official, to appear before the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee and present your views on methods of obtaining due process of law in hearing procedures under Federal loyalty-security programs, with particular reference to an industrial personnel security program. I would also be interested in receiving your views on the use today of the Attorney General's list of proscribed organizations-how the list is compiled, how names of organizations are added to the list, how names are removed, and who uses the list for what purposes. For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of statements dated May 25 and June 25, 1959. As you will note, our first hearing will be held Thursday morning. July 2, 1959. When would you prefer to testify? I look forward to hearing from you about this matter in the near future. Sincerely yours, THOMAS C. HENNINGS, Jr., DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: In my letter to you of June 30, inviting you to appear before the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee to present your views on methods of obtaining due process of law in hearing procedures under Federal loyalty-security programs, particularly the industrial personnel security programs, I did not mention any specific date when the subcommittee would prefer to hear your testimony since I wanted to afford you the greatest possible leeway and convenience in fitting such an appearance into your schedule. Since writing that letter, however, I have heard reports that as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Greene v. McElroy the administration is considering the issuance of an Executive order covering, among other things, hearing procedures under the industrial personnel security program. In view of the grave constitutional rights questions dealing with confrontation and cross-examination raised in the majority opinion in the Greene case, I think 46949-60-pt. 3 |