Joe McCarthy, Address to U. S. Senate, 20 February 1950Edit

Print Source: McCarthy, Joe. Major Speeches and Debates of Senator Joe McCarthy Delivered in the United States Senate, 1950-1951.  Washington, DC: USGPO, 1953. 15.

[1.1] 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. [1.2] It not only concerns me, but it disturbs and frightens me.

[2.1] 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. [2.2] 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.

[3.1] The Secretary of State promptly denied my statement and said there was not a single Communist in the State Department. [3.2] I thereafter sent a telegram to the President, which I should like to read at this time:

[4.1] 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. [4.2] I further stated that I have in my possession the names of 57 Communists who are in the State Department at present. [4.3] A State Department spokesman promptly denied this, claiming that there is not a single Communist in the Department. [4.4] You can convince yourself of the falsity of the State Department claim very easily. [4.5] You will recall that you personally appointed a board to screen State Department employees for 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 of approximately 300 certified to the Secretary for discharge because of 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 blackout. 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 is the State Department. I believe the following is the minimum which can be expected of you in this case.


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.


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 Republlcans-----

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

Mr. McCARTHY. Wait 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 the Democrat Party.

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 man 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. Thus 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 economc 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--but2 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 to 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."

Ladies 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 500,000,000. In other words, in less than 6 years the odds have changed from 9 to 1 in our favor to 8 to 5 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 eriemles 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, bulk 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. LODGE. I should like to say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I am interested in what he is saying, both as a Senator and as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. When the Senator casts doubt on the personnel of the State Department that, of course, is something which interests me very especially. I not only feel that there should be no Communists in the State Department, but that there should be nobody in the State Department who is not affirmatively, enthusiastically loyal to the United States and what it stands for. Therefore I say to the Senator from Wisconsin now that so far as the junior Senator from Massachusetts is concerned, he will at the earliest appropriate opportunity make a motion to have a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee take up every single one of the accusations which the Senator from Wisconsin makes.

Mr. McCARTHY. I was hoping the Senator would.

Mr. LODGE. I make that statement at this point, when the Senator from Wisconsin is beginning to speak about the State Department, because I think that I for one have a special responsibility in that field.

Mr. McCARTHY. In case the Senator from Massachusetts is not able to remain and listen to all of my remarks-----

Mr. LODGE. I cannot remain and listen to the whole of the Senator's speech, because I have another engagement, but I shall read it all in the morning with the utmost care.

Mr. McCARTHY. In case the Senator must leave--and I gay it will take me a long time to conclude, if I continue to have the interruptions I have previously had--I should like to call attention to three of the cases which I intend to cite: Case No. 1, case No. 2. and case No. 81. Those, I think, represent the big three. While there are vast numbers of other Communists with whom we must be concerned, if we can get rid of those big three we will have done something to break the back of the espionage ring within the State Department.

I might say also, in case the Senator will not be present to hear me, that in giving the records I have been very careful about doing two things: No. 1, not to cite anything which has not been confirmed by the intelligence agencies which have been investigating these men; and No. 2--and this I think is very important--I have tried, and I hope successfully, to red-pencil anything that might be embarrassing to any investigating agency. I know it is easy to call for files, and when I call for a loyalty file I do not mean that I am calling for the source of information. I do not think any intelligence agency can work and do a good job if the Senate or the House, or any other body is entitled to make public the source of the informatin. The files which I have here show the source of the information. I contacted one of the Federal intelligence agencies, one of the investigative units. I asked them if they would care to go over what I planned to say before I said it, and red-pencil anything which they thought might in any way divulge the source of information, that would in any way inform the Communist spy ring of the information they have. The answer was. "Well, you have gotten all of it from the State Department files, and the Communists within the Department can see those files, and I will show you which Commies have the top-secret clearance, so if they have seen it, it does not do much damage for the Senate to see them."

Mr. LODGE. Let me say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I am not undertaking to say whether he is right or wrong. I have no way of knowing that. What I say is that the matter he is discussing is of such vital importance that I think it ought to be investigated by a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, I say with my whole heart, I hope I am wrong. There is nothing as disturbing as is this picture. But if I am wrong, I


shall be very happy indeed to know that I am.

Mr. LODGE. I say to the Senator that I shall do all I can to leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of the matter.

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

Mr. McCARTHY. I cannot yield any further.

Mr. LUCAS. Perhaps I can save some time. The Senator from Wisconsin in his discussion with the Senator from Massachusetts said that he had a long speech and had to read it. If the Senator will answer my question, perhaps we can save some time.

Mr. McCARTRY. I cannot yield at this time for the Senator's question. I cannot yield for that purpose until I complete the speech.

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

Mr. McCARTHY. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska if I do not lose the floor thereby.

Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator may yield to me without losing the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. WHERRY. Mr. President, I do not want to interrupt the proceedings. I am perfectly willing to cooperate with the majority leader in every way. But when I look around the Senate Chamber I see only two or three Senators on the other side of the aisle, and half a dozen on this side of the aisle. The matter seems to me to be of such importance-----

Mr. LUCAS. The Senator from Nebraska and I are present.

Mr. WHERRY. Yes; but I believe more Senators should be present. I believe more Senators should be on the floor to hear this statement. I do not want to interfere with the majority leader's program, but I ask him if we cannot take a recess at this time, or, if necessary, have a quorum call to bring Senators back to the Senate Chamber so they can hear the speech being made by the Senator from Wisconsin. It seems to me the only sensible thing to do at this time is to take a recess or have a quorum call.

Mr. LUCAS. As I look around the Senate Chamber I see about as many Senators present as I usually see present when a speech is being made, Last Friday we discussed the creation of a Small-Business Committee all afternoon, and at times only 3 Senators were present. The resolution then before the Senate was a very important one. I believe there are perhaps 25 or 30 Senators now present. That is as many as would remain after we have a quorum call.

Mr. WHERRY. Very well, if the Senator from Illinois feels that way.

Mr. LUCAS. I am perfectly satisfied to sit here and listen.

Mr. WHERRY. Perhaps the majority leader is, but I say that a very important speech is being made. Terrific challenges are being hurled. I am perfectly willing to stay until 9 o'clock, but I submit to the majority leader that I feel more Senators ought to be on the floor it the Senator from Wisconsin is going to proceed with his speech.

Mr. LANGER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for the purpose of suggesting the absence of a quorum?

Mr. McCARTHY. If that is done I do not think we will obtain a quorum, and I will be obliged to discontinue. I should like to read some more of my speech.

Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that we proceed until 7 o'clock without having a quorum call, and at that time the Senate adjourn until 11 o'clock tomorrow, and that then I may have the floor.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say that what has now been suggested is what is often suggested under similar circumstances. Let me remind the Senate that on the request of certain Democratic and Republican Members I made the announcement that there would be no vote tonight on the important measure which is now pending, the cotton-potato measure. Consequently many Senators have gone home. Now the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. WHERRY], the minority leader, and others, do not want the Senator from Wisconsin to continue. They want a quorum call. The Senator from Wisconsin now asks that he be allowed to quit at 7 o'clock. If the speech is one which is going to electrify the Nation, I should think the Senator from Wisconsin would desire to get It off his chest as fast as he possibly can, and not wait until tomorrow, because tomorrow the Senator will have no larger audience than he has at the present time. I should like to say to the Senator from Wisconsin that if the statement he is about to make is as important as he says

it is, and if he can prove what he says he is going to prove, he will find the Senator from Illinois making the same demand that the Senator from Massachusetts made, which is a thorough and complete investigation with respect to all the Communists he is going to name. I want to remain here until he names them. That is what I am interested in. The newspaper reporters and the people of the country generally are demanding to know who these 207 or 201 Communists are.

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. McCARTHY. Yes.

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 for 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. Gustavo 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 an 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 highsalaried 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 Agree-

ments 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 an 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, ladies 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 Mc Carran 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 Schevchenko and others.

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

Mr. KERLEY. 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 Sovietespionage 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.

" SenatorO'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 in 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 "war monger" 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 5--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 exposé 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, resuited in the Berlin airlift which cost 31 American lives; (3) the Polish question; (4) the relationship between UNRRA and the Soviet: (5) 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 bear 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...

Posted by: Darius Williams