However, as a practical matter, I think the practical way out of this matter is along this line of having the Secretary submit to us a statement that he knows of no reason that would question, or bring up any question as to the loyalty of the appointee he is recommending to the President, but that he will have any check made that this committee desires to have made, and thereafter act on it.

It is not a happy way of doing it, of treating some man who is nominated here and subsequently a check shows up a bad record. I grant you that, but it is a practical question we are facing here, and I would be willing to go along with this, for the purpose of getting rid of this large number of appointments that necessarily will come before this committee within the next 30, 45, or 60 days.

It seems to me it is a practical approach, and I would be willing, if the Secretary would send us down a letter of this kind, when he sends a nomination over to the White House, and then left it up to this committee as to whether or not on the facts in the committee, we know of some reason why we should hold a public hearing, or not, to act upon the nomination if it reaches us.

I don't know how you are going to assert that the responsibility is on the legislative branch of the government, when we are only advising, of course, and consenting to these appointments; because, after all, when the FBI goes out and brings us in a large file here of 2 or 3 inches, maybe, there is a whole lot of stuff in it, a whole lot of hearsay, a whole lot of just ordinary rumor, and some things that look like direct testimony, I don't know how we are going to determine whether or not the examination made by the FBI is one on which we can speak with any more certainty than we can on the statement of the Secretary of State who, presumably, will do the very best he can to send up good citizens, of good character and loyalty records, so that we will not be blindly led into recommending the confirmation of someone who ought not to be confirmed.

I think you will find that in many, many instances, there would be lodged with this committee objections to these appointees, and demands for hearings.

Of course, it is up to the committee as to what sort of hearing he has. Generally speaking, where there are objections filed, my feeling is we should have a hearing, whether open or executive is for the committee to decide; but as a practical way out of it, it seems to me this is a very good solution, or a possible solution of the matter for that period of time in which we will be called on to consider so many nominations.

Senator GILLETTE. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gillette.

PROPOSED LETTER ADDS NOTHING TO THE NOMINATION

Senator GILLETTE. May I make just a brief additional comment. I see nothing whatever in the discussion that was just made by Senator George that adds to the sending up of the nomination in the first place. When the nomination is sent up here to the Senate, the nomination is sent up here for consideration and confirmation or rejection.

Are we to take the position that the mere fact that he now has sent up the nomination, and that he knows nothing derogatory of this man, and the fact that he writes a letter saying, "I believe this man is all right," does not add one particle to the responsibility, as far as the mechanics are concerned.

I agree that it is a practical situation that we face because of this large group of names that will be sent in, with the changing administration, but as far as the mechanics are concerned, I see no reason why we cannot proceed as we did with five of these nominations that have come to us and when they come before us, if we see fit to waive the rule, and confirm, that is a matter within our jurisdiction and a matter within our judgment.

I again say I see no reason why we are bound to action here by the mere fact that a letter accompanies a nomination, when the nomination itself carries sufficient burden of proof that he has been approved by the nominating authority.

These appointments are made on the advice and consent of the Senate. We are not asking advice, but as a practical matter, they come up here and are judged to be proper nominations and then our responsibility is in our own methods, with hearing or without hearing, to proceed to consent, if we see fit to consent, and I repeat that if we see fit to waive it, as we have done, that is a matter of responsibility of ours.

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Senator Ferguson.

Senator FERGUSON. I might add, I think if we let the rule stand as we passed it, and if a name comes in here, then we could decide what we want to do on that man's name, instead of changing the rule; but I still come back to the proposition that I think a name check, proper name check, can be made immediately.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes?

BACKING DOWN NOW MIGHT ROUSE SUSPICIONS

Senator SPARK MAN. Of course, I recognize the practical difficulty, and I think we have to do something to work out of it.

I expressed the feeling, from the beginning, that I would be willing to take the check made by Secretary Dulles. However, it seems to me that we have maneuvered ourselves into a pretty difficult situation now.

For instance, people are already asking why we held up those, why Senator Knowland held up those nominations yesterday afternoon, where Phleger was involved.

They are asking about Conant. They are asking about Aldrich. They are asking about Bedell Smith. They are suspecting something. Now, if we change our method of proceeding, it seems to me that we are backing away from something.

I know nothing about any of them, except as I have heard about them from time to time; but someone told me yesterday that when the full information came before us with reference to both Winthrop Aldrich, and also Conant, that there were going to be memberships

and organizations in there that would look bad, and therefore the Secretary probably cannot write us a letter on them, such as has been written on the other two.

I know nothing about Phleger, but for some reason he has not written us that letter either, so it may there is something somewhere in his file that indicates that.

Now, if we back away from this thing, I say this in spite of the fact I think we have to do something to break up this stalemate, but we ought to be very careful of what we do, because if we back away from it, people are just going to say that that confirms some of their suspicions that we were not willing to face the facts when it appears to us that some hard facts were going to be presented to us. Senator GILLETTE. That is right.

THE LETTER DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULE

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Senator, there is something serious in that respect, but at the same time, this letter does not change the rule. This letter really would be an explanation to the public, because it says in there:

However, I have requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation to make a full investigation of Mr. and report their findings to me. Upon receipt of this information, I will examine these findings and submit to you the required security clearance or take such action as may be required.

Senator SPARKMAN. The only thing about it is this, though, and I again say I would be perfectly willing to rest on that, as I was from the beginning, and for my part I am-I am willing to take what Secretary Dulles sends up here, as far as I am concerned; but now, he says he is going to send up the necessary security clearance.

WILL COMMITTEE MAKE OWN ASSESSMENT OF THE RECORD?

Is he going to tell us that the record shows that this man was a member of this organization and that organization, and such other organizations, in order that we may have a little independence in determining for ourselves whether or not he has a record that will cause us to be criticized later because we gave him clearance?

Or, is he just going to say, "In my opinion, he is all right"? The CHAIRMAN. Well, that, of course, we will have to face in connection with both of these two men.

If what you say is true, the examination will develop that fact, if they belong to a bunch of organizations like many folks did before the war, or during the war, so-called Fascist organizations, and some got to the left, but we will have to pass upon the man's qualifications, whether we think he has the integrity and the loyalty to fill the office and

Senator SPARKMAN. Will we know? I don't know any organization either one belongs to. Will we know that they did belong to those organizations before we pass them, because goodness know, different agencies of the government have been pilloried because they accepted people in who belonged to those different organizations.o

Now, have we by our adoption of that rule, transferred that same responsibility to ourselves, and if so, I think we ought to know.

Senator TOBEY. Gentlemen, I have to leave the room for a moment, but I will say that I think Senator George has taken a good position, and I will be here to support it.

The CHAIRMAN. I was informed by Mr. Wilcox that Alex Smith called last night, and he is ill, and Mr. Wilcox discussed the procedure outlined by him before the committee today with Alex Smith and said that Alex was in favor thereof.

RECORDS OF THE CURRENT NOMINEES

I think what we have got to do is, do the best we can under the circumstances; and I certainly would like to get some unanimity so that we don't go off the deep end.

Heretofore, when a nomination came in, we set him down for hearing, or we would have an executive hearing, and we made some very serious mistakes, there isn't any question about that. I can recall several of them, but I do not want to repeat that.

I do feel that we have improved the modus operandi here by getting from the executive branch the statement that they will submit to us in substance as soon as possible their judgment, based upon the FBI findings.

Now, we are in a position where we can proceed as we have heretofore in relation to those four or five, and suspend the rule and go to hearing on those people that are before us, if you want to; or, to us in substance as soon as possible their judgment based upon there is Walter Smith, there is apparently a little underground objection there, I have heard rumors, but I don't want to define them, because I don't know what they are, the same as stated here in relation to Conant.

I know nothing against Mrs. Oswald B. Lord, I have heard nothing derogatory to her.

I have heard it said that Aldrich belonged to or had his name connected with some leftist organization, but that is as far as it goes; and here, he is the head of the Chase National Bank, was it not? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And undoubtedly has been tapped by a good many organizations for charity, help, and so forth, and probably got his name on every time he put down a thousand dollars; that was an endorsement.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I think that a thousand dollars would be. Senator GILLETTE, Mr. Chairman, I am willing to change with him my rightest position for his leftist position

Senator SPARKMAN. For the emolument.

Senator GILLETTE. Yes, if the emolument is there [laughing]. The CHAIRMAN. We will make that a matter of record and see whether he will accept your proposition.

Senator GREEN. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Green.

A STATE DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT

Senator GREEN. It seems to me this is a practical question for us. Of course, it would be well if we had all the information that could be obtained on anyone whose name has been sent up here. It seems

to me if we undertook to do that we are undertaking something that is hopeless, very impractical. I had experience with it myself when I was unfortunately a member of a committee appointed by the Senate to look into 80 cases of this kind, to look in the files.

And, we spent day after day, day after day, going down and looking into them, and nothing could come of it.

I feel, as I look back on it, that there were 2 months of my life

wasted.

The CHAIRMAN. FBI files?

Senator GREEN. Yes.

They will be very voluminous and difficult to evaluate. I don't think that is our business. It seems to me that we have done enough if we receive what amounts to a recommendation from the State Department that these men are fitted for those positions. The names would not be sent up if there were any question of disloyalty or anything like that, and the letter shows that he has had that under consideration. That is the only advantage of it.

One of the Senators has said it does not not add anything except insofar as it shows, on the one hand, that they have considered that phase of the matter. and on the other, they are willing, if they find any evidence, to act upon it. That is all the letter shows.

In the past, we have never undertaken this, the Foreign Relations Committee has never undertaken it unless there was derogatory information given to them with which to investigate or hold hearings to some extent, and that goes far enough.

PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY LIES WITH THE ADMINISTRATION

After all, the primary responsibility is upon the Executive to send that name up here. We want to have the opportunity to pass on it. If there is anything we know already, or which arises by questioning at the hearing, that is enough for us to do. The primary responsibility is on the administration who sent the name up, and I think it should rest there, and we are assuming a great deal if we are going to pass on the matter ourselves, so it seems to me that it is something, as was suggested here, the only thing that is feasible, and it is sufficient to protect us in our constitutional duty of giving or withholding con

sent.

The CHAIRMAN. Have we got any statement on Mrs. Lord?

Mr. O'DAY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What?

Mr. O'DAY. A biography.

The CHAIRMAN. That means, we haven't got a letter.

Senator GREEN. I thought that was sent up in each case, a biographical sketch.

Senator GEORGE. They send that up every time.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is taken from "Who's Who in America." Senator GREEN. We can go into the affairs we need to go into, in hearings, but we are going much farther than disloyalty when we inquire into whether the man is tolerant, as in the case of Conant,