The Conference With Rusk-How It Came About..

5

STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY-1963-65

WHERE IS LOYALTY OWED?

To what degree does one owe loyalty to his boss, as against other considerations?

This seemingly simple question, going to the matter of personal integrity, triggered a surprising variety of responses when it was brought up in the course of the State Department Security hearings.

It all went to a question of the ethics involving the moral right of Otto F. Otepka to give the Senate subcommittee, at the request of the subcommittee, documentary evidence proving how his superior, John F. Reilly, had lied and tried to beguile the subcommittee. Also involved was the question of whether Mr. Otepka should have passed his comments up through the next higher echelon-including Mr. Reilly so that his State Department chiefs would have had a chance to quash the rebuttal of Mr. Reilly's testimony if they wished to do so.

This question of moral philosophy underlies much of the controversy in the security hearings. Most executives, in and out of government, seem to like the idea that they have the complete loyalty of their subordinates-which they don't-but the dividing line between this and the concept of moral personal responsibility splintered the views of the witnesses questioned by the subcommittee on this point.

Senator Hruska, as part of a colloquy with Secretary Rusk, during the Secretary's conference with the subcommittee on October 21, 1963, asserted his belief that the highest loyalty was due to the country.

Secretary Rusk agreed there was the matter of "a higher loyalty" but he pressed the point that his subordinates should let the Secretary- or someone on "a very senior level"-chart the course. Here is the exchange:

1

Senator HRUSKA. In that connection, the record contains testimony that apparently some of the subordinates feel that the highest loyalty they have is to the Department not to the Government nor to their country, but to their Department and their superiors in the Department. That is a little hard for some of us to accept up here, because we feel that the country should have the highest loyalty.

That is in the record and it was repeated. It came up in particular reference to the conduct of Mr. Otepka, who is now facing one of the charges of conduct not becoming the standards of an officer of the Department.

Yet, as I understand it, when he asked for specifics, there are not any standards set, it is whatever the standards are in the mind of the accuser of Mr. Otepka. But to have that kind of perverted idea as to the loyalty, you see, of people in the Department who by statute should have the right to come and divulge information if they think it is for the good of the cause-it is a little discouraging.

Secretary RUSK. There is a standard in the Executive order of 1948 on the handling of certain kinds of materials.

Senator HRUSKA. Security materials, yes. I am not talking about security materials.

Secretary RUSK. If Mr. Otepka's conduct is not in violation of that Executive order, that will come out in the course of these proceedings. He has claimed he did 1 State Department Security hearings, pt. 5, pp. 276-277.

what was charged, but they are not involved in the Executive order. That is one of the points at issue.

But on the question of higher loyalty, of course, there is a higher loyalty. But how is it given embodiment? I would think that, for example, if there are Executive orders that would impose certain limitations upon an officer of the Department of State, that he at least ought to inform some of its superiors as to the action he feels he must take in contravention of that Executive order.

My concern is that-I must assume, since I have had no notice of anything to the contrary, that the committee has not authorized or instructed that its staff, for example, to obtain information which would require members of the executive branch to violate the Executive order of the President.

Senator HRUSKA. There is no such intention, nor has any such effort been made. Secretary RUSK. That is right. Therefore, this is something I think the committee and I can clarify between us. If we get to the point where certain information is vital to the committee and it is in contravention of the Executive order for someone else to make that available, this is the kind of point that I, myself in the case of certain of the committees, have discussed with the President and have made certain information available to the committee.

I think it is at my level or a very senior level of the Department that that kind of issue is involved. Otherwise, the whole administration of Government just erodes away.

The matter of "institutional loyalty" came up during the questioning of John F. Reilly, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security-Mr. Otepka's immediate boss.

The pertinent portion of this testimony is as follows: 2

Mr. SOURWINE. *** Mr. Reilly, what loyalties should be expected of an employee of the Office of Security of the Department of State?

Mr. REILLY. I would expect his loyalties to be to the Secretary of State and such superiors as he had intermediately, and the United States of America. Mr. SOURWINE. In that order?

Mr. REILLY. We all take an oath of allegiance, sir, to the United States, and I think we all respect that oath.

Mr. SOURWINE. I just wondered about the order.

Are you familiar, sir, with the resolution of the 85th Congress, House Concurrent Resolution 1755, approved July 11, 1958, setting forth a code of ethics for Government employees?

Mr. REILLY. I read it at the time. I have not refreshed my recollection recently. Mr. SOURWINE. Are you aware that this code of ethics, approved by Congress, directs Federal employees to "put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to the country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government departments?" Mr. REILLY. Was that a question?

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, sir. I asked if you knew that.

Mr. REILLY. Yes, I have read that; yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you concur in that?

Mr. REILLY. I certainly do.

Mr. SOURWINE. You are a great believer in institutional loyalty, aren't you? Mr. REILLY. I am that. I certainly am. I think if you work for a person, you carry out that person's orders. If you find that those orders violate your conscience in any way, it seems to me it behooves you to get out.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think that is true of a Government employee?
Mr. REILLY. I think so. I think it is true of any of us.

Mr. SOURWINE. You don't think a Government employee has a duty to try to stop anything in Government which is bad for the security of the country? Mr. REILLY. I certainly do.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think he should just get out?

Mr. REILLY. No. I think he should use his appeals, out in the open, certainly.

The same sort of questions were put to Mr. Otepka. His answers were precise, responsive. One of his key points was loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to any party, to any person or to any Government department.

2 Ibid., pt. 5, pp. 261–262.

Here s the pertinent text: 3

Mr. SOURWINE. All right, Mr. Otepka. What loyalty should be expected of an employee of the Office of Security of the State Department?

Mr. OTEPKA. The same loyalties that should be expected of any member of the Federal service.

Mr. SOURWINE. Well, what are they?

Mr. OTEPKA. That is, he should put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to any party, to any person, or to any Government department.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is this your own opinion or are you quoting from some instructions which are binding on the Federal employees?

Mr. OTEPKA. I have held that belief long before I read such a statement which I have quoted from a resolution passed by both Houses of Congress.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know when that was when that resolution was passed?

Mr. OTEPKA. I believe, sir, it was in 1958.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was that the so-called Ethical Code for Federal Employees? Mr. OTEPKA. Yes; that is entitled the "Code of Ethics for Government Employees."

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you aware that you have been accused of what has been termed as "institutional disloyalty" because you testified before this committee? Mr. OTEPKA. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know what the phrase "institutional disloyalty" means?

Mr. OTEPKA. I presume that it means that person should owe first loyalty to the institution by which he is employed, and in this respect I presume it would be the Office of Security of the Department of State.

Mr. SOURWINE. What is wrong with that, if anything?

Mr. OTEPKA. I see nothing basically wrong with it.

Mr. SOURWINE. Have you been disloyal to the Department of State, to your knowledge?

Mr. OTEPKA. No, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. Áre you familiar with Elbert Hubbard's brief essay which begins substantially this way, "When you work for a man, work for him," and winds up substantially in this way, "If you cannot say good things about him and support him, get out of the organization and then say all you want, but, otherwise, if you try to stay in, while you cannot support him, the winds will blow you out and you will never know what happened.' This is a very broad paraphrase of his statement.

Have you read this?

Mr. OTEPKA. I am generally familiar with that phrase, but not in such detail. Mr. SOURWINE. Is this applicable in the case of an employee of this Federal Government; and, if not, why not?

Mr. OTEPKA. I would say that it is applicable to an employee of the Federal Government.

Mr. SOURWINE. If he does not like his boss he should get out?
Mr. OTEPKA. I was going to continue-

Mr. SOURWINE. Go ahead.

Mr. OTEPKA (continuing). By saying that the employee, however, must consider the will or the wishes of the Congress as to what is the order of loyalties. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, if the Federal employee found circumstances in his agency or department or branch or division or office which were inimical to the security of the United States, and if he had done what he could to get those conditions corrected from within and had been unsuccessful in getting them corrected, wouldn't he have not only the right but the duty to report the matter elsewhere, to higher authority or to the Congress of the United States?

Mr. OTEPKA. He

Senator SCOTT. Especially, if he has been summoned by a committee of the Congress-may I add that to give testimony.

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes.

Mr. OTEPKA. He most certainly would have that duty. And then this, of course, touches upon this first loyalty which is to his country. I remember the Reporter magazine once derided Mr. McLeod for the motto on his wall also, I believe, authored by Elbert Hubbard: "An ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of brains."

*

Ibid., pt. 5, pp. 262-264.

2