Senator HUMPHREY. You mean to tell me you are never given an opportunity to check into the validity of these complaints?

Mr. HUMELSINE. No, sir, our minor employees are called up before Congress, congressional committees in executive session and put under secrecy injunction not to tell their superiors in the Department of State anything that transpired, before we have any idea what the charges are, and so forth. Those same employees are brought up and put in a public session and make their allegations.

Senator HUMPHREY. What could you do with fellows like that?
Mr. HUMELSINE. What do we do?

Senator HUMPHREY. If this is the report to which that fellow's message refers, then somebody is guilty of a gross breach of confidence and trust, and obviously it is the gentleman whose name is attached to the Teletype story.

RECEIPTING FOR FILES

Senator KNOWLAND. Unless the file had disappeared and been returned.

Mr. HUMELSINE. This file has never been out of the loyalty-security section of the State Department, except when it was out for proper purposes in the discharge of the functions of the Department of State.

Senator KNOWLAND. Do you have a system, such as we had in the Army, where, to take out plans, people had to sign for the document, sign in and out, if they take them from the file, so that you know everybody that has handled a secret document, or top secret document?

Mr. BOYKIN. We get a receipt for tthe document, and on top secret documents, we have top secret control officers.

Senator FERGUSON. Is a receipt put into the file, or that part of the file where the file is taken out so that if anybody is looking for that particular file, they would find that paper or that receipt as a substitute?

Senator KNOWLAND. Or, a card showing the document?

Mr. BOYKIN. We have charge cards. When a file is removed, the person that has that file is recorded on this card.

Senator FERGUSON. Where is that card kept?

Mr. BOYKIN. It is kept in the file in place of the file.

Senator FERGUSON. As a substitute, so that the person going through the file would find that?

Mr. BOYKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you know who John E. Matson is?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir. He is a security officer in the Department of State.

Senator FERGUSON. NOW?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir.

HOW DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR THIS CHARGE?

Senator FERGUSON. How do you account for a security officer, whose job it is to see that there is security, swearing under oath that this file was not in the file, the words used here were "disappearing from the agency's secret files." How do you account for that?

Mr. HUMELSINE. I don't know how to account for it. I will have to talk to him and find out what he had in mind.

Senator FERGUSON. You must trust him up to today.

Mr. HUMELSINE. It is quite possible that this particular file was out of the file at the time that

Senator FERGUSON. That he went to get it?

Mr. HUMELSINE. That he inquired about it, but if a file is out of a particular file, then the responsibility is to ascertain where that is. We had previous knowledge of this particular charge because the head of our Security Division was talking to this particular security officer on Sunday, and he made a reference to this particular case, and complained that that file was out. The head of the Security - Division said he would check into it, and he did the first thing Monday morning, and he located the file immediately.

Senator KNOWLAND. Who is the head of the agency?
Senator HICKENLOOPER. Where did he locate the file?

Mr. HUMELSINE. He located it in the loyalty-security file.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Where it should be placed, where it should be?

Mr. HUMELSINE. I am not sure of where he located it, but it was in the loyalty-security file room.

Senator FERGUSON. That does not mean, Mr. Humelsine

Mr. HUMELSINE. It doesn't mean much.

Senator FERGUSON [continuing]. Not to be in the file room, if it wasn't in its proper place, or a substitute in there for it.

Mr. HUMELSINE. It could very well have been in Mr. Boykin's office, maybe, or it could have been in my office

Senator FERGUSON. Then there should be a substitute.

Mr. HUMELSINE. That is something else, Senator. It is possible in a lot of cases that you can have a clerical error made, but there is a lot of differences between a clerical error and the business of saying that the files have been rifled, and what do you think the impression is when the citizens of this country read that particular thing, when they read that they think that there is something wrong, that the files are being rifled, that there are subversives in the State Depart

ment.

Senator KNOWLAND. Here is a point, and this is not directed to you, we are merely trying to get this thing clarified: Supposing you had somebody engaged in espionage, I think some of us recently saw a film based on it where they took a document out to microfilm it and then restored it to the files.

If the fellow could do that without putting a card in its place, so that no one, none of your security officers, when he went to find the file, would know who it was charged to

Mr. HUMELSINE. I don't know whether he went to find it or whether he called up and inquired about, I don't know enough about the case, Senator, to discuss it.

Senator FERGUSON. You can't criticize it, then?

Mr. HUMELSINE. I couldn't discuss it adequately until I have had a chance to find out what the circumstances are. All I know is there are supposed to be, or there is supposed to be a file lost from the Department of State, and this file I have right here in my hand is that file.

IS MATERIAL SERIALIZED?

Senator FERGUSON. If you handed me that report-is there any serial number on that, so that I could ascertain whether or not any pages had been removed?

Mr. HUMELSINE. No, sir, there are not.

Senator FERGUSON. Why not? How can you have security if you don't have serial numbers?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Because, as I admitted previously in this, we make no claim of perfection, we are trying to improve it and that is one of the things we probably should do, particularly.

Mr. BOYKIN. We are starting that project.
Senator FERGUSON. When did you start?

Mr. BOYKIN. I was told about 3 months ago.

Senator FERGUSON. I don't understand. How can you take care of these security files unless you do have some system like that, because otherwise you can go in and look at a file and if you brought the whole file up today and handed it to me, I couldn't tell that this was all that had ever been in it.

Mr. HUMELSINE. I wouldn't bring the whole file up and hand it over to you.

Senator FERGUSON. I know you wouldn't.

WHY ARE PRIVATES CALLED TO TESTIFY AGAINST SUPERIORS?

Senator HUMPHREY. The thing I can't understand is, and let me get this straight, is this security officer just what you might say a private in the ranks, just one of many security officers?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir.

Senator HUMPHREY. Now, the distinguished Senator from Michigan has been a county prosecutor.

Senator FERGUSON. Never.

Senator HUMPHREY. Well, a judge.
Senator FERGUSON. All right.

Senator HUMPHREY. Some of us around here have had some executive responsibility and believe me when you have documents of any importance you have a line of communication, a chain of command, and you just don't let shipping clerks come in and go on and testify. I mean, the mayor of a city has a chief of police for which he is responsible, and if the chief has got some private out here on the 23d ward on the beat, and starts talking things over, he is fired, generally speaking, because he is supposed to clear these things.

What I am trying to get at is, how in the world can you explain this so-called private in the ranks getting called here before committees of the Congress, and testifying publicly without ever even so much as consulting his superiors.

Senator FERGUSON. Because he is the only man, in many cases, that knows, has knowledge of the facts. If he is the man that found this file, or that missed this file, and didn't find the file, he is the only man that could testify to it. Mr. Humelsine could have testified to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, could I have your attention. I think

you should get to the testimony, it refers to a sheet of paper or a letter from Caracas.

Now, I think that we are going around in circles in relation to this matter because, first, if we are going to discuss the authority of a legislative committee to call in an inferior servant of the executive department, that is one thing. On the other hand, the question as to what the inferior, if he was an inferior, what he was sent to South America to investigate and upon which he made a report-he recommended that a certain fellow be investigated, and that came up, and according to the testimony this morning nothing was done, so he went in and looked for the file and it was gone, and afterward I think it did come back. There was something to that effect. But I question whether we are getting anywhere on that subject unless we should take up the issues sometimes and decide with the executive department the proper procedure in cases of this kind.

I think it is probably the right of the executive department, as executives have in the past, to absolutely limit that. I am not sure this man-I happened to be in that committee for a few moments. and heard the testimony, and I tried to repeat it as I grasped it, and I had to go to another meeting.

DID WITNESS PERJURE HIMSELF?

Senator FERGUSON. I will have to disagree on the record that the executive can limit what a man tells before a congressional committee. He is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The CHAIRMAN. He has not done it in this case.

Senator HUMPHREY. He ought to qualify himself by "as far as I know."

Senator FERGUSON. There isn't any evidence that the man swore to a falsehood.

Senator SPARKMAN. He swore short of the truth.

Mr. FERGUSON. There isn't any evidence that he swore-Mr. Humelsine doesn't have any evidence that he swore.

Senator SPARKMAN. He said it was there.

Mr. HUMELSINE. In order to discuss this thing fairly, you would have to discuss this with the particular man and find out all the parts of this, what is involved, and so forth, and then make a decision.

Senator FERGUSON. I don't think anything in the record would show that this man perjured himself, according to that.

Senator SPARKMAN. He may not have perjured himself, but as I see it, I think it is right in line with the statement I made at the invitation of the committee to get some understanding between the legislative and the executive. It seems to me that he is sworn in such a way as to create a misleading impression throughout the country. In other words, there is not a word in there that he went to the official files in that office to ask them if at that time he was looking for the file

Senator FERGUSON. He is one of the officials, a man that had access to it.

Senator SPARKMAN. Well, there is the other side. Mr. Humelsine says it may have been on his desk or it may have been on Mr. Boykin's desk, he doesn't know.

Senator TOBEY. You have the file here. Now, if any person came down to your office in the State Department, would they find there a card saying that you had taken it out, or that somebody had taken it out?

Mr. BOYKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator TOBEY. All right. Thank you.

CAN A WITNESS BE DISCIPLINED BY SUPERIORS?

Senator SPARKMAN. May I say one other thing because I don't care about arguing the point too far, but it is in line. I heard over the radio yesterday afternoon some of the proceedings in which one of the witnesses was testifying about fellows in the State Department, and I heard one of the Senators say to the witness, after they had concluded, "Now, if anybody tries to," and don't hold me strictly to the exact words, but something like this, "If anybody tries to discipline you because you have given this testimony, let us know. I can assure you that we can protect witnesses against discipline."

Now, just for the sake of argument, assume that this security agent, I won't say he has sworn falsely, but that he certainly has shown a lack of concern for the whole truth, and after all, he swears to tell that as much as any part of truth, can anybody in the executive department say anything to him about it that might be construed as discipline, or are they going to run counter to the order of Congress not to discipline a witness?

Senator KNOWLAND. Mr. Chairman. I think, however, and this is important, since Senator Humphrey mentioned it, and then we will go to the point you just raised, he says that in any police department if a policeman was called that his channel would be to go to the chief of police. I dispute that very much.

In a grand jury investigation of the department the chief of police himself might be the one who was under investigation, and if the policeman, who might be the one who had the knowledge of the facts had to go and clear with the chief, who was the person who was involved in the conspiracy, you never would clean up a corrupt city of that kind, and I don't think that the department should have the right to muzzle a witness who is properly called before a congressional committee.

Senator SPARKMAN. Neither do I. I took it from the other end. Could anybody talk to him in a manner of admonition, to be a little more regardful of the whole truth.

Senator FERGUSON. I cannot agree that there is a scintilla of evidence that this man Matson didn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The CHAIRMAN. That simply is a newspaper report.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Well, I would hate to take a newspaper report over a teletype as to the facts of a man's testimony, and be convinced of what he testified to.