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.

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 consent.

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. Do we have a statement on Aldrich?

Mr. O'DAY. A biography.

Dr. WILCOX. No report.

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,

whena seme of the professors at Harvard may have expressed very nerous views wind people who have different ideas as to a form of ramment

Senator Maxshima Mr. Chalman, are they not all good Republicane?

The CHATRIA. I don't how how long they have been.

Senator FixENLO PER I am one of those who criticized the procedure in the past, when the Democrats were in office, and I am not going to be inconsistent there just because the Republicans are in and my that we will wire or responsibility. I felt that it was a dose oraries, and is would be a loose practice under the Republicans 20 1 ** ander the Democrats, and my criticisms were directed at That long as bad practices and bad decisions in the operation KÅ sanoin 14, qmas of our Goremment, and I am going to try to be jut ke Aromage with the Republican summation as I was with the

Sheshem Tomar. I want to read into the record something from the Wet Times:

A

Fina # man gare his seat to a woman; she fainted. On recovery, she

Bawalya Wickestore. I am again stating my positionfax, benator Hickenlooper.

WAIVE EDT DO NOT DESTECT THE KULE

Saislar Biokrstorm Under the cinumstances, with the change In la altuakration, and with the certification of oral matters, or wait the waying of that kind indicating the confidence of the tay thaal in the people that he appoints. I am willing to Shandily waive the rule. I am not willing to destroy the rule nor

༈

BOKSINA SKANKMAN, Will the Senator yield and allow me to ask a Rusko TuEK SZOPER. Yes.

SOOR SPAREMAN, The rule was modified to the extent that we www.wk, but we would waive it only if the Secretary sent us a INALE BUT, w he sent us in the case of Carl McCardle and the other 1...wow. W it came to Phleger we didn't have that letter, so we Asported bom conditioned upon getting that letter. Yesterday afterWon the Wer never came through, apparently, and therefore the whole thing is being held in suspense.

Now, are you going to waive that kind of a letter in your propobition?

Scnator HICKESTOOPER, NO. I want the letter from the Secretary of State saying that in his opinion there is nothing derogatory in this man's record or background, or any of the others that would touch on loyalty, security risk, or anything else.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me ask you this

Senator HICKENLOOPER. If there is anything, I want to see it, and if there isn't any such letter, I want to know why.

HOW MUCH WILL THE SECRETARY TELL THE COMMITTEE?

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me ask you one other question. Let us suppose, in the case of Winthrop Aldrich, he was a member of the Society for Soviet-American Friendship.

Senator GREEN. How about Asiatic Studies?

Senator SPARKMAN. Or the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Senator GREEN. I will take that, that started out very innocuously. Senator SPARKMAN. It showed he was a member of the Institute of Pacific Relations-as far as I know, he was not-and that is the only thing that might suggest to somebody that the information was derogatory.

Is the Secretary in his letter going to tell us that the record shows that he was at one time a member of the Institute of Pacific Relations, so that when we pass him out, we will have that knowledge before us?

I don't mind saying that I would vote to pass him out, even with that knowledge before us, but at the same time, if we are going to claim to ourselves the responsibility of passing on these things, we ought to know about them.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. In that connection-if you will yield. Senator SPARKMAN. You had the floor, you yielded to me, so it is

yours.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. It doesn't make much difference.

THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS

In that connection, I suppose that the overwhelming number of people whose names were connected with the Institute of Pacific Relations had nothing wrong with them at all.

The trouble with the Institute of Pacific Relations was that a certain crowd of leftwingers and Communist sympathizers got in there, in positions of control.

Senator SPARKMAN. Of course, I just picked that name out of the air, and I have no knowledge of any membership there.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Most of the people were perfectly fine people, in my judgment.

I do not think that whole situation itself was subversive. I think the way it was manipulated by certain people in control, guiding it along that line without the consent or even knowledge of most of the people who appeared on the rolls as members or contributors, was the thing to be considered.

Now, if a person was a supporter of, say, the Institute of Pacific Relations, I would like to know and to inquire as to how extensive his participation was, what he participated in, the programs he approved and so on, and if he answers satisfactorily, why, as far as I am concerned, there is nothing wrong with his membership. Senator SPARKMAN. If that information was given us in the Secretary's letter, then we would be able to question him.

ACCEPT PRELIMINARY CERTIFICATION, PRESERVE THE RULE

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I am willing to go along on this if the Secretary sends a statement that he, while perhaps no fullfledged in