Excerpts From Senate Proceedings
on Senator Joe McCarthy's Speech
Relating to Communists in the State Department

Congressional Record, 81st Congress, 2nd Session

February 20, 1950


Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr, President, I wish to discuss a subject tonight which concerns me more than does any other subject I have ever discussed before this body, and perhaps more than any other subject I shall ever have the good fortune to discuss In the future. It not only concerns me, but it disturbs and frightens me.

About 10 days ago, at Wheeling, W. Va., in making a Lincoln Day speech, I made the statement that there are presently in the State Department a very sizable group of active Communists. I made the further statement, Mr. President, that of one small group which had been screened by the President's own security agency, the State Department refused to discharge approximately 200 of those individuals.

The Secretary of State promptly denied my statement and said there was not a single Communist in the State Department. I thereafter sent a telegram to the President, which I should like to read at this time:

President HARRY S. TRUMAN,

White House, Washington, D. C.

In the Lincoln Day speech at Wheeling Thursday night I stated that the State Department harbors a nest of Communists and Communist sympathizers who are helping to shape our foreign policy. I further stated that I have In my possession the names of 67 Communists who are In the State Department at present. A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. You can convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. You will recall that you personally appointed a board to screen State Department employees tor the purpose of weeding out fellow travelers - men whom the board considered dangerous to the security of this Nation. Your board did a painstaking job, and named hundreds which had been listed as dangerous to the security of the Nation, because of communistic connections.

While the records are not available to me, I know absolutely of one group ot approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because ot communism. He actually only discharged approximately 80. I understand that this was done after lengthy consultation with the now-convicted traitor, Alger Hiss. I would suggest, therefore, Mr. President, that you simply pick up your phone and ask Mr. Acheson how many of those whom your board had labeled as dangerous Communists he failed to discharge. The day the House Un-American Activities Committee exposed Alger Hiss as an important link in an international Communist spy ring you signed an order forbidding the State Department's giving any information in regard to the disloyalty or the communistic connections of anyone in that Department to the Congress.

Despite this State Department black-out, we have been able to compile a list of 57 Communists in the State Department. This list is available to you but you can get a much longer list by ordering Secretary Acheson to give you a list of those whom your own board listed as being disloyal and who are still working in the State Department. I believe the following is the minimum which can be expected of you in this case.

1. That you demand that Acheson give you and the proper congressional committee the names and a complete report on all of those who were placed in the Department by Alger Hiss, and all of those still working in the State Department who were listed by your board as bad security risks because of their communistic connections.

2. That you promptly revoke the order in which you provided under no circumstances could a congressional committee obtain any information or help in exposing Communists.

Failure on your part will label the Democratic Party of being the bedfellow of international communism. Certainly this label is not deserved by the hundreds of thousands of loyal American Democrats throughout the Nation, and by the sizable number of able loyal Democrats in both the Senate and the House.

Mr. President, the only answer I have received to this telegram was the statement by the President at his press conference to the effect that there was not a word of truth in the telegram.

Subsequently, the Democratic leader of the Senate - at least, the alleged leader - made a speech in Chicago in which he repeated substantially what the President said, except that he went one step further and stated:

If I had said the nasty things that MCCARTHY has about the State Department, I would be ashamed all my life.

He also said there was not a word of truth in my charge. I think it is unfortunate, not because I am concerned with what the senior Senator from Illinois happens to think, but because he occupies such an important position. I believe if we are going to root out the fifth column in the State Department, we should have the wholehearted cooperation of both Democrats and Republicans -

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Walt until I finish. If the Senator will stay with me for the next few hours he will learn a great many facts. I have never refused to yield to any Senator, and I do not intend to refuse. The Senator from Illinois will have full time in which to answer any question he wishes to ask, but let me first finish my sentence.

I started to say that I think it is especially bad because it indicates a preconceived decision not to work with us in attempting to ferret out Communists. I do not feel that the Democratic Party has control of the executive branch of the Government any more. If it had, with the very able Members on the other side of the aisle, we would not find the picture which I intend to disclose. I think a group of twisted-thinking intellectuals have taken over both the Democratic and Republican Parties to try to wrest control from them.

I shall be glad now to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I should like to say to the Senator that there is no one in the Senate or in the country who is any more opposed to Communist domination of any nation or Communist infiltration into any country than is the Senator from Illinois. What I am asking the Senator to do - and I hope he will do it, and the country wants him to do it - is to follow through with the speech which he made in Wheeling, W. Va., in which he stated more than 200 persons working In the State Department were known to the Secretary of State to be members of the Communist Party. If the Senator made that statement - and that is what has been reported - I want him to name those Communists. If there are card-carrying Communists In the State Department, the Senator from Illinois will go along with the Senator from Wisconsin in any way possible to remove those Communists from the rolls.

The Senator does not have to do as he did in Salt Lake City and say, "I am not charging these four people with being Communists." The Senator is privileged to name them all in the Senate, and if those people are not Communists he will be protected. That is all I want the Senator to do. If the Senator names those 205 card-carrying Communists, and he proves to be right, the Senator from Illinois will apologize for anything he has said about the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his views, but I should like to assure him that I will not say anything on the Senate floor which I will not say off the floor. On the day when I take advantage of the security we have on the Senate floor, on that day I will resign from the Senate. Anything I say on the floor of the Senate at any time will be repeated off the floor.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Not until I have finished answering the question of the Senator from Illinois. The Senator called my attention to something, and I am glad he did; otherwise I might have overlooked it. Incidentally, the speech in Reno, Nev., and that in Wheeling, W. Va., were recorded, so there is no question about what I said. I do not believe I mentioned the figure 205. I believe I said "over 200." The President said, "It is just a lie. There is nothing to it."

I have before me a letter which was reproduced in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on August 1, 1946, at page A4892. It is a letter from James F. Byrnes, former Secretary of State. It deals with the screening of the first group, of about 3,000. There were a great number of subsequent screenings. This was the beginning.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Please let me finish. The Senator will have all the time in the world to ask questions, and I shall be very glad to yield to the Senator for that purpose, and he can even make short speeches and take all the time he wants.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois -

Mr. MCCARTHY. I do not yield at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin declines to yield.

Mr. MCCARTHY. The letter deals with the first group of 3,000 which was screened. The President - and I think wisely so - set up a board to screen the employees who were coming to the State Department from the various war agencies of the War Department. There were thousands of unusual characters In some of those war agencies. Former Secretary Byrnes In his letter, which is reproduced in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, says this:

Pursuant to Executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of State from various war agencies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, OIAA, and so forth. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommendation against permanent employment has been made in 285 cases by the screening committee to which you refer in your letter.

In other words, former Secretary Byrnes said that 285 of those men are unsafe risks. He goes on to say that of this number only 79 have been removed. Of the 57 I mentioned some are from this group of 205, and some are from subsequent groups which have been screened but not discharged.

I might say in that connection that the investigative agency of the State Department has done an excellent job. The files show that they went into great detail in labeling Communists as such. The only trouble is that after the investigative agency had properly labeled these men as Communists the State Department refused to discharge them. I shall give detailed cases.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President -

Mr. MCCARTHY. As to the 57 whose names the Senator is demanding, if he will be patient and sit down -

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, in view of the statements made, the Senator should yield.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I shall yield at this time only for a question. I shall not yield for any lengthy speeches by the Senator from Illinois. If he wishes to ask a question, I shall be glad to answer it.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, did the Senator say at Wheeling, W. Va., last Thursday night that 205 persons working for the State Department were known by the Secretary of State to be members of the Communist Party, or words to that effect? Did he call the attention of the country to the fact that 205 men in the State Department were card-carrying Communists? Did the Senator say that? That is what I should like to know.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to insert in the RECORD a copy of the speech which I made at Wheeling, W. Va.

Mr. LUCAS. Cannot the Senator answer "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I will ask the Senator please not to interrupt me. I will yield to him later. I will give him all the chance in the world.

Mr. LUCAS. I asked the Senator a very simple question.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I ask at this time unanimous consent to be allowed to insert in the RECORD a copy of the speech which I made at Wheeling, W. Va., and at Reno, Nev. It was the same speech.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. MCCARTHY. In that case I shall read the speech into the RECORD.

Mr. LUCAS. We want to hear it.

Mr. MCCARTHY. The speech reads:

Ladies and gentlemen, tonight as we celebrate the one hundred and forty-first birthday of one of the greatest men in American history, I would like to be able to talk about what a glorious day today is in the history of the world. As we celebrate the birth of this man who with his whole heart and soul hated war, I would like to be able to speak of peace in our time, of war being outlawed, and of world-wide disarmament. These would be truly appropriate things to be able to mention as we celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

I hope the Senator from Illinois will stay for this.

Mr. LUCAS. I shall be right here. I am coming over to the Republican side of the aisle so that I will not miss anything.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I am sure the Senator will not miss anything.

The speech proceeded:

Five years after a world war has been won, men's hearts should anticipate a long peace, and men's 'minds should be free from the heavy weight that comes with war. But this is not such a period for this is not a period of peace. This is a time of the "cold war." This is a time when all the world is split into two vast, increasingly hostile armed camps - a time of a great armaments race.

Today we can almost physically hear the mutterings and rumblings of an invigorated god of war. You can see it, feel it, and hear it all the way from the hills of Indochina, from the shores of Formosa, right over into the very heart of Europe itself.

The one encouraging thing is that the "mad moment" has not yet arrived for the firing of the gun or the exploding of the bomb which will set civilization about the final task of destroying itself. There is still a hope for peace if we finally decide that no longer can we safely blind our eyes and close our ears to those facts which are shaping up more and more clearly. And that is that we are now engaged in a show-down fight - not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains, but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies.

The great difference between our western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, ladies and gentlemen, it is moral. There are other differences, of course, but those could be reconciled. For instance, the Marxian idea of confiscating the land and factories and running the entire economy as a single enterprise is momentous. Likewise, Lenin's invention of the one-party police state as a way to make Marx's idea work is hardly less momentous.

Stalin's resolute putting across of these two ideas, of course, did much to divide the world. With only those differences, however, the East and the West could most certainly still live in peace.

The real, basic difference, however, lies in the religion of immoralism - invented by Marx, preached feverishly by Lenin, and carried to unimaginable extremes by Stalin. This religion of immoralism, if the Red half of the world wins - and well it may - this religion of immoralism will more deeply wound and damage mankind than any conceivable economic or political system.

Karl Marx dismissed God as a hoax, and Lenin and Stalin have added in clear-cut, unmistakable language their resolve that no nation, no people who believe in a God, can exist side by side with their communistic state.

Karl Marx, for example, expelled people from his Communist Party for mentioning such things as justice, humanity, or morality. He called this soulful ravings and sloppy sentimentality.

While Lincoln was a relatively young man in his late thirties, Karl Marx boasted that the Communist specter was haunting Europe. Since that time, hundreds of millions of people and vast areas of the world have fallen under Communist domination. Today, less than 100 years after Lincoln's death, Stalin brags that this Communist specter is not only haunting the world, but is about to completely subjugate it.

Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down - they are truly down.

I might say for the benefit of the Senator from Illinois that what I am reading was taken from a recording of the speech. I did not use a written speech that night. I continue the reading:

Lest there be any doubt that the time has been chosen, let us go directly to the leader of communism today - Joseph Stalin. Here is what he said - not back in 1928, not before the war, not during the war - but 2 years after the last war was ended: "To think that the Communist revolution can be carried out peacefully, within the framework of a Christian democracy, means one has either gone out of one's mind and lost all normal understanding, or has grossly and openly repudiated the Communist revolution."

And this is what was said by Lenin in 1919, which was also quoted with approval by Stalin in 1947:

"We are living," said Lenin, "not merely in a state, but in a system of states, and the existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with Christian states for a long time is unthinkable. One or the other must triumph in the end. And before that end supervenes, a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the Bourgeois states will be inevitable."

Ladles and gentlemen, can there be anyone here tonight who is so blind as to say that the war is not on? Can there be anyone who fails to realize that the Communist world has said, "The time is now" - that this is the time for the show-down between the democratic Christian world and the Communist atheistic world?

Unless we face this fact, we shall pay the price that must be paid by those who wait too long.

Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace - Dumbarton Oaks - there was within the Soviet orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were in the world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only 6 years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Soviet Russia - an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 600,000,000. In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 6 against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Communist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As one of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is destroyed. It will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within."

The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front.

At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on earth and, at least potentially, the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shining living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity.

The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this Nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in Government we can give.

This is glaringly true in the State Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst.

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. President, I will not yield any further.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield in order to straighten out the record respecting the program for tomorrow?


Mr. KNOWLAND. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that we already have a special order that the Senate will meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning under a unanimous-consent agreement, with the time for a vote having been set. Therefore it would not be possible for the Senator to continue his speech as of 11 o'clock tomorrow.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Very well. I will withhold yielding for a call of a quorum for the time being, if the Senator does not mind,

Mr. President, I continue to read from my speech:

Now I know it is very easy for anyone to condemn a particular bureau or department in general terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case - the case of a man who has done much to shape our foreign policy.

When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to work for the communization of China. Strangely, however, he sent official reports back to the State Department urging that we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.

Later, this man - John Service - was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the Communists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the Under Secretary of State, who insisted on his prosecution, was forced to resign. Two days after Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over as Under Secretary of State, this man - John Service - who had been picked up by the FBI and who had previously urged that communism was the best hope of China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but promoted. And finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements and promotions.

Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta - by far and away the most important listening post in the Far East.

Now, let's see what happens when individuals with Communist connections are forced out of the State Department. Gustave Duran, who was labeled as (I quote) "a notorious international Communist," was made assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin American affairs. He was taken into the State Department from his job as a lieutenant colonel in the Communist International Brigade. Finally, after intense congressional pressure and criticism, he resigned in 1946 from the State Department - and, ladies and gentlemen, where do you think he is now? He took over a high- salaried job as Chief of Cultural Activities Section in the office of the Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations.

Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senator from Illinois to the fact - especially in view of the comment he recently made - that I did not list John Service as one of the 57. Perhaps I could have, but I have listed only persons whose files were available to me. For some unknown reason, John Service's file has disappeared in the State Department. I have tried to find where it is, and I have been told that it is in the office - quoting the individual over there - "of the top brass." So I have not listed Service, and that is the sole reason why I have not.

I have listed only individuals whose records have been confirmed by the President's own investigative agency.

The Senator from Illinois will also note that I have not named any of the 57. I have named or will name four individuals, and I have given or will give their records. One is John Service, I have shown what influence he has had in the Far East. I have not reached the second one yet; but I am now discussing what happens when those with communistic connections are forced out of the State Department, and in a short time I shall reach the fourth one.

I read further from my speech:

Then there was a Mrs. Mary Jane Kenny, from the Board of Economic Warfare in the State Department, who was named in an FBI report and in a House committee report as a courier for the Communist Party while working for the Government. And where do you think Mrs. Kenny is - she is now an editor in the United Nations Document Bureau.

Another interesting case was that of Julian H. Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agreements Section of the State Department for 11 years and was sent to Turkey and Italy and other countries as United States representative. After the statute of limitations had run so he could not be prosecuted for treason, he openly and brazenly not only admitted but proclaimed that he had been a member of the Communist Party * * * that while working for the State Department he stole a vast number of secret documents * * * and furnished these documents to the Russian spy ring of which he was a part.

You will recall last spring there was held in New York what was known as the World Peace Conference - a conference which was labeled by the State Department and Mr. Truman as the sounding board for Communist propaganda and a front for Russia. Dr. Harlow Shapley was the chairman of that conference. Interestingly enough, according to the new release put out by the Department in July, the Secretary of State appointed Shapley on a commission which acts as liaison between UNESCO and the State Department.

That is the man who headed the conference which the Secretary of State said was a tool of Communist Russia, a sounding board of Communist propaganda. Again, that man was not named as one of the 57, but he might well have been.

I read further:

This, ladles and gentlemen, gives you somewhat of a picture of the type of individuals who have been helping to shape our foreign policy. In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with Communists.

I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy.

One thing to remember in discussing the Communists in our Government is that we are not dealing with spies who get 30 pieces of silver to steal the blueprints of a new weapon. We are dealing with a far more sinister type of activity because it permits the enemy to guide and shape our policy.

In that connection, I would like to read to you very briefly from the testimony of Larry E. Kerley, a man who was with the counter espionage section of the FBI for 8 years. And keep in mind as I read this to you that at the time he is speaking, there was in the State Department Alger Hiss, the convicted Alger Hiss; John Service, the man whom the FBI picked up for espionage -

And for turning over secret documents -

Julian Wadleigh, who brazenly admitted he was a spy and wrote newspaper articles in regard thereto, plus hundreds of other bad security risks.

The FBI, I may add, has done an outstanding job, as all persons in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree. If J. Edgar Hoover had a free hand, we would not be plagued by Hisses and Wadleighs in high positions of power in the State Department. The FBI has only power to investigate.

Here is what the FBI man said.

Mr. President, let me point out solely for the record something which I know Senators are well aware of, but something which causes confusion in the minds of many persons throughout the United States, namely, that the FBI has no power other than to investigate. People often write to Senators, and say in their letters, "With a man like J. Edgar Hoover at the head of the FBI, how is it that this situation exists?" For their benefit I think it should be stated that the FBI has no power whatever except to dig up facts and report them to the Department of Justice or other executive agencies.

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield.

Mr. FERGUSON. On that point, let me inquire whether it is also true that the Secretary of State has the sole power to discharge, without trial, anyone in the State Department whom he thinks might be disloyal.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I so understand - under the McCarran amendment.

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, under the McCarran Act.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I so understand; and I understand that it applies both to employees of the State Department and to civil-service employees.

Mr. FERGUSON. So it is not necessary for a trial to be held in such cases, but the Secretary of State has full power to discharge, and that power was given to him in 1946; was it not?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Yes; and I intend to call attention to it.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Not until I finish reading this statement. I shall be glad, when I finish reading it, to yield to the Senator.

I read further from the statement, reading what was said by the FBI man:

In accordance with instructions of the State Department to the FBI, the FBI was not even permitted to open an espionage case against any Russia suspect without State Department approval.

Incidentally, Mr. President, this was testimony given at a hearing of a Senate subcommittee, headed by the Senator from Maryland [Mr. O'CONOR].

I read further:

Mr. ARENS. Did the State Department ever withhold from the Justice Department the right to intern suspects?

Mr. KERLEY. They withheld the right to get out process for them which, in effect, kept them from being arrested, as in the case of Schevehenko and others.

Mr. ARENS. In how many instances did the State Department decline to permit process to be served on Soviet agents?

Mr. KESLEY. Do you mean how many Soviet agents were affected?

Mr. ARENS. Yes.

Mr. KERLEY. That would be difficult to say because there were so many people connected in one espionage ring, whether or not they were directly conspiring with the ring.

Mr. ARENS. Was that order applicable to all persons?

Mr. KERLEY. Yes; all persons in the Soviet- espionage organization.

Mr. ARENS. What did you say the order was as you understood it or as it came to you?

Mr. KERLEY. That no arrests of any suspects in the Russian-espionage activities in the United States were to be made without the prior approval of the State Department.

That means the prior approval of the Alger Hisses and the Wadleighs in the State Department.

I read further:

Now the reason for the State Department's opposition to arresting any of this spy ring is made rather clear in the next question and answer.

"Senator O'CONOR. Did you understand that that was to include also American participants?["]

"Mr. KERLEY. Yes; because if they were arrested that would disclose the whole apparatus, you see."

Meaning the whole apparatus both inside and outside the State Department.

I read further:

In other words they could not afford to let the whole ring which extended into the State Department be exposed.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. Not at this time. The Senator has insisted that I read this statement, and I shall read all of it before I yield.

I now read further:

This brings us down to the case of one Alger Hiss who is important not as an individual any more, but rather because he is so representative of a group in the State Department. It is unnecessary to go over the sordid events showing how he sold out the Nation which had given him so much. Those are rather fresh in all of our minds.

However, it should be remembered that the facts in regard to his connection with this international Communist spy ring were made known to the then Under Secretary of State Berle 3 days after Hitler and Stalin signed the Russo-German alliance pact. At that time one Whittaker Chambers - who was also part of the spy ring - apparently decided that with Russia on Hitler's side, he could no longer betray our Nation to Russia. He gave Under Secretary of State Berle - and this is all a matter of record - practically all, if not more, of the facts upon which Hiss' conviction was based.

Under Secretary Berle promptly contacted Dean Acheson and received word in return that Acheson (and I quote) "could vouch for Hiss absolutely" - at which time the matter was dropped. And this, you understand, was at a time when Russia was an ally of Germany. This condition existed while Russia and Germany were invading and dismembering Poland, and while the Communist groups here were screaming "warmonger" at the United States for their support of the allied nations.

Again in 1943, the FBI had occasion to investigate the facts surrounding Hiss' contacts with the Russian spy ring. But even after that FBI report was submitted, nothing was done.

Then late in 1948 - on August 8 - when the Un-American Activities Committee called Alger Hiss to give an accounting, President Truman at once issued a Presidential directive ordering all Government agencies to refuse to turn over any information whatsoever in regard to the Communist activities of any Government employee to a congressional committee.

Incidentally, even after Hiss was convicted -

The statement should have been "even after Hiss was indicted" -

it is interesting to note that the President still labeled the expose of Hiss as a "red herring."

If time permitted, it might be well to go into detail about the fact that Hiss was Roosevelt's chief adviser at Yalta when Roosevelt was admittedly in ill health and tired physically and mentally * * * and when, according to the Secretary of State, Hiss and Gromyko drafted the report on the conference.

That is not entirely correct; actually the report on the conference was drafted by Hiss, Gromyko, and an Englishman whose name I cannot now recall.

Mr. MUNDT. It was Gladwyn Jebb.

Mr. MCCARTHY. That is what I understood the Senator to say previously.

I read further:

According to the then Secretary of State Stettinius, here are some of the things that Hiss helped to decide at Yalta. (1) The establishment of a European High Commission; (2) the treatment of Germany - this you will recall was the conference at which it was decided that we would occupy Berlin with Russia occupying an area completely circling the city, which, as you know, resulted in the Berlin airlift which cost 31 American lives; (3) the Polish question; (4) the relationship between UNRRA and the Soviet; (6) the rights of Americans on control commissions of Rumania, Bulgaria, and Hungary; (6) Iran; (7) China - here's where we gave away Manchuria; (8) Turkish Straits question; (9) International trusteeships; (10) Korea.

Of the results of this conference, Arthur Bliss Lane of the State Department had this to say: "As I glanced over the document, I could not believe my eyes. To me, almost every line spoke of a surrender to Stalin."

As you hear this story of high treason, I know that you are saying to yourself, "Well, why doesn't the Congress do something about it?" Actually, ladies and gentlemen, one of the important reasons for the graft, the corruption, the dishonesty, the disloyalty, the treason in high Government positions - one of the most important reasons why this continues is a lack of moral uprising on the part of the 140,000,000 American people. In the light of history, however, this is not hard to explain.

It is the result of an emotional hang-over and a temporary moral lapse which follows every war. It is the apathy to evil which people who have been subjected to the tremendous evils of war feel. As the people of the world see mass murder, the destruction of defenseless and innocent people, and all of the crime and lack of morals which go with war, they become numb and apathetic. It has always been thus after war.

However, the morals of our people have not been destroyed. They still exist. This cloak of numbness and apathy has only needed a spark to rekindle them. Happily, this spark has finally been supplied.

As you know, very recently the Secretary of State proclaimed his loyalty to a man guilty of what has always been considered as the most abominable of all crimes - of being a traitor to the people who gave him a position of great trust. The Secretary of State in attempting to justify his continued devotion to the man who sold out the Christian world to the atheistic world, referred to Christ's Sermon on the Mount as a justification and reason therefor, and the reaction of the American people to this would have made the heart of Abraham Lincoln happy.

When this pompous diplomat in striped pants, with a phony British accent, proclaimed to the American people that Christ on the Mount endorsed communism, high treason, and betrayal of a sacred trust, the blasphemy was so great that it awakened the dormant indignation of the American people.

He has lighted the spark which is resulting in a moral uprising and will end only when the whole sorry mess of twisted, warped thinkers are swept from the national scene so that we may have a new birth of national honesty and decency in Government.

Mr. President, that answers the question of the Senator from Illinois as to the number of Communists I stated were in the State Department. I have stated I have the names of 57. Let me make it clear that I do not claim to know all the Communists in the State Department. I do not have any counter-espionage group that can go there and ferret out all the information. I have also pointed out that the State Department refused to discharge - and so stated in a press conference - 205 individuals who, its own security agency said, were unsafe risks. If the Senator has any further questions, I shall be glad to yield.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. I now repeat the same question I asked the able Senator in the beginning: Did the Senator from Wisconsin, in a speech at Wheeling, W. Va., Thursday, February 9, declare that he had a list of 205 persons working for the State Department, who were known by the Secretary of State to be members of the Communist Party?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I may say, if the Senator is going to make a farce of this, I will not yield to him.

Mr. LUCAS. No.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I told him three times. I read the speech to him. I told him I said there were 57 Communists in the State Department. I told him there were in the State Department 205, who, according to the President's own Security Board, are unsafe risks. They said, "Mr. Secretary, fire these men. Discharge them." He refused to do it. I quoted Secretary Byrnes' letter, telling him to do that. I shall not answer any more silly questions of the Senator. This is too important, too serious a matter for that. I am trying to get down to the point of showing the Senate cases, facts, and dates, so that the President will admit that he was wrong, and I hope the Senator from Illinois will admit that he went off half cocked in Illinois the other day when he said, as the President said, this is all lies, and tried to prejudge the case.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. LUCAS. This is pretty serious to the Senator from Illinois, and it is serious to the Senate, and it is serious to the country. The only thing I am asking the able Senator is whether the newspapers misquoted him. The newspapers quoted him, and there is an editorial in the Washington Post, which is libelous if not true, in which the Senator is quoted in his speech at Wheeling, W. Va., as saying that he had a list of 205 persons working for the State Department who were carrying Communist cards. What I want to know is merely one simple thing. I did not find anything in the speech to bear out what the newspaper reported to be true. The Senator keeps talking about 57; the newspaper says the Senator said there were 205. That represents quite a difference, and it is of importance, whether the Senator from Wisconsin made the statement or did not make it. He can answer yes or no to that. He may say that in his speech he did not make that statement; he may have made it in a conference of some kind. But it was carried all over the country, through the Washington newspapers, the New York newspapers, and the Chicago newspapers, that the Senator said he could name the 205 who were carrying Communist cards. It may be a silly question in the eyes of the Senator from Wisconsin, and that, as he said, I am trying to make a farce out of this thing, but it is a serious charge; the Senate and the country are entitled to know the facts.

Mr. MCCARTHY. May I answer the Senator's question? Mr. LUCAS. It is serious to me.

Mr. MCCARTHY. Let me answer the Senator's question, for the third time. I will tell the Senator, and I am now repeating it, if the Senator will sit down and give me the time to do it, that there are at least 57 Communists in the State Department. I think, without any trouble at all, with sufficient investigation, we can find the 205 for the Senator. As to what the Washington Post says, I do not know, and I frankly do not care. I think that is clear. I will not answer the Senator a fourth time. I said that I made speeches. I have said there were 57 Communists in the State Department. I wired the President to that effect.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I am not yielding to the Senator now. I have wired the President to that effect, and I told him those names were available to him. I am now going to give the Senate of the United States the facts, and I refuse to go further into the question raised by the Senator from Illinois. Let me tell him now, so there may be no question In his mind, I said 57 Communists were in the State Department. I said there were 205 in the State Department whom the Secretary of State refused to discharge, although his loyalty board said, "Discharge those men." Now, is that clear to the Senator?

Mr. LUCAS. If that is what the Senator is saying, I can understand; but what I am trying to find out is whether newspapers have deliberately distorted what the able Senator said in his speech.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I refuse to yield further to the Senator.

Mr. LUCAS. I want to find out.

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MCCARTHY. For a question, certainly.

Mr. LEHMAN. Do I correctly understand the Senator to claim he has submitted the names of the 57 cases to which he refers and the 205 names which are referred to, not only in the Washington Post but in a number of other newspapers, to the State Department? Does he claim he has submitted the names of 57 and 205, or any substantial number?

Mr. MCCARTHY. The answer to the Senator is, "No." The answer is "No."

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. MCCARTHY. I am glad to yield.

Mr. LEHMAN. Does not the Senator believe that, interested as he is in combatting communism, and we are all interested in combatting communism, that it is his duty both as a Senator of the United States and as an American to submit those names to the State Department or to the Senate, in executive session?

Mr. MCCARTHY. If the Senator will but sit down and let me make my report to the Senate, he will have all the information he wants. The Senator from Wisconsin does not need any advice on his duty as a Senator, in this respect.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one question?

Mr. MCCARTHY. No, not now; not until I give some of the information the Senator is asking for. I will not yield for another 15 or 20 minutes, until I can get down to the information which I am trying to give the Senate. I will not yield any further.

Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I demand the regular order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin will proceed.

Mr. LUCAS. I beg the Senator's pardon.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I shall be glad to yield later to the Senator.

Mr. President, I am going to have difficulty talking, while the Senators are chatting.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let there be order in the Chamber.

Mr. MCCARTHY. I shall be glad to yield for 5 or 10 minutes to let the Senators carry on their conversation.

Mr. President, I have before me information from the State Department files, information which the President says the Senate did not have. Having this information, it is a serious question as to what should be done with it. I originally thought possibly we could hope for some cooperation from the State Department and the President. However, in going over the material and finding that all of it, of course, has been available to the State Department, for it is all from their flies. It seemed that nothing would be gained by calling it to their attention again. The President, I felt, had demonstrated his lack of interest quite thoroughly during all the Hiss investigation. Then, when I sent him a telegram and said, "Mr. President, I have the 57 names; they are yours if you want them"; and when he answered by calling me a liar, I felt I could get no cooperation from the President.

Then, when the majority leader, without even discussing the matter with me, though he knew I had stated that I had the information, he made a speech In Illinois and prejudged the case, without hearing the evidence, and said, "The Senator from Wisconsin is a liar," I felt I could get no cooperation from the majority leader. It was then suggested that I ask the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments to go into the matter and that I submit the names to that committee. I talked to some of the members of the committee. They thought perhaps the Committee on the Judiciary or the Committee on Foreign Relations, or both committees jointly might have Jurisdiction, and they thought it should be discussed with them.

I discussed it with a number of the individuals who have been interested in the subject, digging up this information. They felt that under the present circumstances the committee could do very little, because, if we gave the committee the names and the information, and the President said, "You cannot get any information from the State Department files," they would be hamstrung. It was suggested that I draft a resolution providing that the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, or some other committee, should have the right to subpena the secret State Department files. That sounds all right on the face of it, Mr. President, but it is dangerous to go that far.

As is well known, during the Coplon trial the judge ordered the FBI to submit all its secret files, including the sources of information. That information was made public, and a number of men in the FBI have stated that it set the FBI back 10 years. It endangered the security of some of their best men.

I finally arrived at the conclusion that the only way to clean out the State Department, or any other Department which is infested with Communists, is not by the passage of any additional law. The only way it can be done is to secure the cooperation of the President. If we could get that, and he says that the Information will be made available so that trusted staff members could go over the files, and we can be sure that the sources of information shall not be disclosed, we can clean house. I frankly think that is the only way. In line with that, I decided to submit to the Senate the detailed cases. Originally I was disturbed that I might give out information which would embarrass the investigative agencies by indirectly disclosing some of their sources of information, but I was told, "With so many commies over here having top positions, you need not fear giving the information to the Senate."

I have gone over it. Let me say, before starting, that I shall submit quite a large number of names. I think they are of importance. They all worked for the State Department at one time or another. Some are not there at the present time. Many of them have gone into work which is connected closely with the Department, for example, foreign trade, and some branches of the Maritime Commission.

I shall not attempt to present a detailed case on each one, a case which would convince a jury. All I am doing is to develop sufficient evidence so that anyone who reads the RECORD will have a good idea of the number of Communists in the State Department.

I wish to thank very much the Senators who very patiently have remained here and have listened to what may have been somewhat tedious during the last 8 hours.

I assure them that I tried to keep my remarks as brief as possible, while at the same time giving Senators all the pertinent information from the flies.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate only a moment, and then I shall move that the Senate take a recess.

I do not know whether the newspaper clippings which have come over my desk are correct or incorrect. However, I know that the reporters for the wire services and other reporters for various newspapers who heard the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin in his latest tour across the country have reported many things he said which alarmed me, to say the least.

When the Senator from Wisconsin was at Wheeling, W. Va., the newspapers reported that the Senator declared he had a list of 205 persons working for the State Department, who were known to the Secretary of State to be members of the Communist Party. When I read that statement I was shocked, and alarmed, as I had a right to be. It seemed to me that if the Senator from Wisconsin had a list of 205 persons whom he knew to be working in the State Department, and he waited to go on a Republican tour in West Virginia in order to tell the people of the country the fact. It seemed to me to be slightly out of order. If he had the information, he should have reported it directly to the Secretary of State or to a committee of the Senate of the United States.

Not satisfied with that, in Reno, Nev., when he was making another political speech, the Senator from Wisconsin said he had compiled a list of 57 Communists in the State Department. Later, in another speech, he named four individuals, three of whom, I understand, have not been with the Department for some time, one of whom was never with the State Department. In that statement the Senator from Wisconsin said he hastened to say he did not charge any one of the four with being a Communist.

Mr. President, the only thing the Senator from Illinois has been attempting to get, and it is information, which the Senate and the country are entitled to have - is a statement of the names of these individuals in the State Department, and to get the names as fast as possible. In order to clear up any cloud that may be hovering over every member of the State Department at this very moment.

Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has done an injustice to members of the State Department who are loyal and patriotic, and who are attempting to carry on in the great world crisis in which we find ourselves. Instead of doing so on a political tour, it would have been much better and much more in keeping with the best interest of the Nation, had the Senator submitted the names directly to a committee of the Senate or to the State Department, instead of making political propaganda out of it from one end of the country to the other.

Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois can speak for the majority party in saying there is not a single Member on this side of the aisle who is not as much interested as is the Senator from Wisconsin in determining where Communists rest, if there are any within the Government departments, and we will do the very thing the Senator is requesting. I guarantee him that a committee will be formed at once, and the Senator from Wisconsin will have an opportunity to come before the committee to tell who these persons are. Before the committee, he will not be able to hide behind numbers. He will have to tell the facts and disclose the names of the persons within the State Department who are Communists. It ought to be done, Mr. President. If such charges can be made against a group in the State Department, without naming them, they can be made against almost any group In any department. Therefore, in view of what the Senator has said upon his political tour over the country, and in view of what he has said on the floor of the Senate tonight, it becomes absolutely necessary to clear this matter up as soon as possible.

So far as I am concerned, if, as the Senator said in his Wheeling, W. Va., speech, if the press quoted him correctly, there is a single person in the Department carrying a Communist card, the Senator from Illinois wants to know about it, and every other Senator wants to know about it. We shall find out. We shall not find out by innuendo and by half truths and distorted facts. The facts, if there are facts, will be produced. We shall not go around talking about No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, and so on to No. 83.

Mr. President, that is all I have to say at this time. I repeat what I said in the beginning, that all the Senator from Illinois was trying to find out was as to who the persons in question are. I think the Senate and the country are entitled to know as speedily as possible just who in the State Department is being charged with being a Communist. If the facts produced show that the persons on the list are Communists, the Senator knows that the President of the United States, as well as the Senator from Illinois and every other Member on this side of the aisle will not rest until such Communists are discharged from office. Moreover, if there have been any traitorous acts either of espionage or anything else connected with it, having in mind the numbers the Senator has given us, they, too, will probably be ferreted out.

But, Mr. President, to assert that 205 persons are card carriers of the Communist Party, or that even 87 are card carriers, is to reflect seriously upon the FBI. The FBI knows practically every Communist card carrier in this country. I say the President of the United States and the FBI would not knowingly permit such a card carrier to remain in any Government department. If they would, I should want to find out about it myself.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. What is the pleasure of the Senate?


Mr. LUCAS. I now move that the Senate stand in recess until tomorrow at

11 o'clock a. m.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 11 o'clock and 42 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 21, 1950, at 11 o'clock a. m.

Government and Politics

West Virginia Archives and History