it was a complete and full field investigation in all respects," and that the summary contained everything that was of importance that related in any way to Mr. Bohlen.

I also asked for a statement from Mr. [Scott] McLeod.1 We did not see Mr. McLeod, but I asked for and received a written statment from Mr. McLeod that he had never seen anything except what was in the summary and that was all of the information he had and all of the information that was before Mr. Dulles when Mr. Dulles made his decision on Mr. Bohlen.

Senator SMITH. And neither one had seen the raw files?

Senator TAFT. No, neither Mr. McLeod or Mr. Dulles had seen the raw files. Any difference that there was arose exactly from the same material that Senator Sparkman and I saw.

Senator TOBEY. May I interrupt for a question?
Senator TAFT. Yes.

REASONS FOR REFUSING ACCESS TO THE RAW FILES

Senator TOBEY. Did they tell you why it was that they did not want to let you see the raw files?

Senator TAFT. Well, I think, I do not know, but I have the feeling that if I insisted, they might have done it. The only thing is that the Atomic Energy Act, as Senator Hickenlooper pointed out, has the express provision that the members of the committee or the chairman of the committee should have full access to every paper relating to the

matter.

Of course, Mr. Hoover is anxious to protect his FBI. He does not want to have these things brought out any more than they have to be. He wants to eliminate as far as possible names of people who are informants, although those names are in this summary.

The Attorney General is also very loath to make it available.

Now, I think that it is because they believe or have the feeling that if they give it to one Senator, then there is no reasonable ground on which they might not have to give it to others if a Senator asks for it and if that becomes the practice, they think it will destroy the entire value of the FBI. That is the argument made to me and I did feel under all the circumstances that I was satisfied that I would find nothing in the raw files which was not in the summary.

So, I finally yielded on it after I read the summary. There was not anything in the summary that led me to feel. "Now, I would like to see the testimony of this man in the raw files, that full, complete statement."

The statements in the summary were very complete. at least on the matter about which we are primarily concerned, and I did not see anything, and if I had found such, I would have asked at least an opportunity to examine the evidence of those particular people. The evidence seemed to be complete as far as I could see.

ASSESSMENT OF THE "DEROGATORY PAGES"

That evidence consists of the so-called 16 derogatory pages. I would say that 10 pages of that or more relate to people who are opposed

1 Director, Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State.

very strongly to Mr. Bohlen's political views, who think he was too much involved in the Yalta matter, who said he was more responsible for it than he said he was responsible. It deals with that subject. I did not cover it particularly, but I would say no one of those people questioned the loyalty of Mr. Bollen, and usually at the end-as a matter of fact, the people who testified derogatorily to his political views all affirmed that they considered him a man of high character and morality.

So, those two groups are two entirely different groups, and when you say 16 pages are derogatory information, it overstates the situation.

THE HOMOSEXUAL ISSUE

The actual study on the question of homosexuality relates to five situations, five cases plus one other matter I will refer to. There are two people who merely say that they think he is, with no evidence. whatever. One of those Mr. Dulles referred to was a man who had a sixth sense, who had no basis or any justification as far as I could see in the statement.

One was this man. Another was a woman who had been in the office with Mr. Bohlen and who said that he always looked and acted effeminately and his tone of voice and expression was extremely effeminate except when he talked French. That seemed to me a rather curious qualification. [Laughter.]

But I certainly did dismiss those two.

INSTANCES OF ASSOCIATION

The other three instances are instances of association; I mean, it is simply because he knew these people and in some cases knew them rather well, and because they were homosexuals in all probability— one certainly and the other two in all probability-well, I would say two certainly and one in all probability-and that therefore he himself is suspect. That is the basis of the charge.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. What was the nature of the association? Senator TAFT. Well, I will tell you that entirely. I am not supposed to give names, although the names are almost so well known it could hardly be regarded as secret.

One man, known here in Washington, who has "confessed" and so forth. I don't know, but you probably have heard of him. He is a friend of a number of people, and as far as that is concerned, he is still quite active here, as far as I know.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. As far as I am concerned, I am not asking you to give any names unless you think it better.

Senator TAFT. That was one of the requirements Mr. Dulles made. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Well, what was the nature of the association?

Senator TOBEY. This particular man, the only association I can find is that when Bohlen and his wife went to Europe in 1948, that they invited him to stay at their house. They left a nurse and children home and he stayed in the house about 6 weeks when Bohlen and his wife were in Europe. That hardly seemed to me to even create a prima facie case of association. I could not see it myself.

Senator SPARK MAN. He had returned and he had no place to go. Senator TAFT. That is right, he had come back from abroad and he was looking for a place to live.

Now, it just happened when I was away this summer, a gentleman and his wife from the State Department lived in my house for 3 months. [Laughter.] And I don't know anthing about him. I think— I am sure he is a perfectly honorable man. Nevertheless, it would raise the question.

A good many of the stories now related to

Senator FULBRICHT. May I ask you, this one they considered definitely a homosexual, why did they consider him

Senator TAFT. Well, we heard a tape recording he had done there. Now, he denied any habitual situation

Senator SPARKMAN. There were but three instances.

Senator TAFT. Really only one instance, only one he admitted.
Senator SPARK MAN. Yes.

Senator TAFT. But nevertheless he is a friend of Bohlen. They went to Moscow together and when Bohlen went there back in 1933 and 1934, before Bohlen was married-subsequently he married his sister and that is the relationship. That itself seems to me rather-well, certainly I can see no presumption from that fact. Since then, of course, he is a brother-in-law and he has frequently been in the house. There has been no direct charge. I know of no evidence of any kind. I think maybe I might deal here with another story that came to me and which has been the basis for some of what Senator McCarthy has said or implied.

MOSCOW IN 1933 AND 1934

I was told that there was a tape recorded confession by [deleted] in the State Department. I was told that it involved a general charge against Bohlen going back again to Moscow in 1934, but only, when I traced it back to where that came from, only on the basis that somebody told somebody else that this tape recording contained a statement by [deleted] that everybody that went to Moscow in 1933 and 1934 were homosexuals, the whole mission. That was the story that came and that is the story you may hear from some other Senators, and I was interested in finding out, that is, if there was this tape recording.

Well, they did have a tape recording, and they brought it out and they played it for us. Senator Sparkman and I heard it and heard all there was.

It involved this "confession" we are talking about. It was a tape recording made about the time they were going to give a lie detector test on [deleted], and it contained no such statement as was alleged regarding the mission to Moscow in 1933 and 1934. It did suggest there was something of that kind there-and I don't think there was any question there was quite a lot, but the only thing said was that the Ambassador-what was it?

Senator SPARKMAN. [William] Bullit1 had asked one man, "Have you got a girl?" And the next man, "Have you got a girl-anybody who did not have a girl there, well, you better watch that fellow."

1 Then U.S. Ambassador in Moscow.

Senator TAFT. Yes, that was the tale which [deleted] told on the tape recording.

Senator SPARKMAN. In other words, he was encouraging his unmarried men to have girl friends in Moscow, and if they did not have, "You better watch this fellow."

Senator TAFT. Yes. That is the only thing about Moscow in 1933 and 1934 and there was no reference whatever about Bohlen.

The man at the State Department that had this file, Ford, told me he knew nothing beyond this, that he must have been the one referred to in these inferences.

NOT THE SLIGHTEST SINGLE WORD THAT REFLECTS ON BOHLEN

I can say that there is in there not the slightest single word that in any way reflects on Bohlen or which says anything about him or had any relation to Bohlen.

I may say when I think back, before I went up there, thinking back on the source of this statement, that there was this thing-it was a very indefinite statement, this man had been told by somebody else. The tape recording was made by the CIA at the request of the State Department, recording this [deleted] "confession" in 1951 in March-well, I do not know, but it was in 1951.

Senator SPARKMAN. I did not catch the month, but I remember 1951.

Senator TOBEY. Where is [deleted] now?

Senator TAFT. [Deleted] is on his way out. I think he should have been out long ago. He has been in the State Department a long time, although people have recommended that he be dismissed and definitely he is on his way out.

A THIRD CASE

Senator TAFT. Now, the third man is the man Senator Hickenlooper has referred to, exactly the case you and I discussed some time ago. And those are the three instances.

This third man is one who is in the artistic and literary circles in Paris. He has been in the Voice of America. He is apparently quite an attractive man. He is an inveterate associate of homosexuals and is one probably himself, although there is no occasion, of course, to make a direct investigation-he denies it.

He and his wife have been friends of Mr. and Mrs. Bohlen. They have stayed in their house in Paris, visited overnight or for 2 or 3 days, week ends. They have also visited at Washington here. And says that Bohlen is his best friend in America and he regards him as of the highest character and he denies any possible suggestion or anything.

Mrs.

says that as far as she knows their time was very limited, Mrs. Bohlen and Mrs. were all there, and in her

opinion there was nothing in it. She has divorced

within the

last 6 months, I think, under circumstances not set forth in the

report. I do not know what they are.

Now, those are the three associations.

NO EVIDENCE FOR A CASE AGAINST BOHLEN

I could not see that in any way they were associations that might not have occurred to anybody. I could not see the basis for any evidence whatever for starting a case, even starting a case of investigation of Mr. Bohlen.

1

Here it is, 20 years. He has been married 16 years. Even the charge in the so-called Hickenlooper letter which the members all read here, said before marriage even Bohlen was suspect at least for homosexual tendencies, from being so friendly with the Ambassador when he had been in the Embassy, but that is the only thing said even in this anonymous letter; it was not a direct charge, he just said he was suspect.

I cannot see in those circumstances any evidence that shows a friendship with or association with these people beyond a perfectly normal existence-a man with a wife and children who has people from time to time staying at his home.

NO EVIDENCE OF SECURITY RISK

That is the story, and I would be prepared to tell the Senate that I could find no prima facie evidence to suggest that Bohlen had anything against him-well, the phrase I use or the word, "security"-that Bohlen in any way a security risk because of his having all I could find is occasional association with certain people who might have been bad security risks themselves, but that I could find no suggestion or prima facie case against him to suggest he was in any way himself questionable.

Now, of course, even the people who testified at some length against his political views all affirm his character. Besides that there is a list of 100 or so prominent men of all kinds, many of whom you know. who testify highly as to his character and reputation for morality, and so forth. Of course, one of those does not carry as much weight as one the other way, but I can find no basis for beginning even an investigation of this subject.

Senator MANSFIELD. May I ask one question?
Senator TAFT. Yes.

LIE DETECTOR TESTS

Senator MANSFIELD. Was there any real basic disagreement between Mr. McLeod and Dulles?

Senator TAFT. Well. I did not talk to McLeod and I do not want to develop it. My impression was McLeod wanted him to take a lie detector test.

Senator FERGUSON. He wanted to have Bohlen take it?

Senator TAFT. Yes, and Dulles did not want to. As far as the lie detector test, Dulles does not think much of it and Hoover does not think much of the thing, and Bedell Smith thinks it is more or less infallible.

I talked with Ford who played the record and others, and I got the impression that Ford felt that it was not accurate at all, but that it

1 An anonymous letter received by Senator Hickenlooper in 1950 accusing Bohlen and other named individuals of homosexuality. The letter was discussed in executive session with Secretary Dulles on March 18.