Joe McCarthy and the historians

Human Events, Jan 1, 1999 by Evans, M Stanton

We need go no further to see the point than the committee that compiled the list, whose conduct was in all respects the opposite of that described by Tydings. In January of 1948, a subcommittee of House Appropriations, chaired by Rep. Karl Stefan of Nebraska (with full committee chairman Taber sitting in), reviewed various entries of the list and questioned State Department spokesmen John Peurifoy and Hamilton Robinson about them. These exchanges show quite clearly the charitable/legalistic view of personnel security that then prevailed at State (though sometimes nominally disavowed): That suspect employees should receive the benefit of doubt, much as in a court of law.

This stance, for good or ill, was markedly different from that of Taber and Stefan, who argued with considerable force that where any reasonable doubts existed, they should be settled the other way around (which could be done under the so-called McCarran rider, permitting suspect employees to be discharged forthwith). Even more to the present point were the comments these lawmakers made about the list and its implications for the security drill at State. Compare with the Tydings treatment, for instance, the actual views of Chairman Taber:

"... . I would say this to you, that it makes me disturbed as to whether we have any representation of the United States in the State Department. I have not been as disturbed in a long time. . . I would feel that if you are going to have anybody employed in the State Department the question of loyalty should be absolutely clear and that we should have people who are representing the United States and whose interest is first the United States."

In similar vein were the comments of Stefan, who conducted most of the interrogation. No more than chairman Taber did he suggest that he was satisfied with security goings-on at State, ready to "clear" it and its employees, or viewed the Lee list with indifference. Instead he said precisely the reverse, as follows:

"I am just a man from the prairies of Nebraska, just asking you why it is that these people are on the payroll when the people of the United States are trying to get behind the government to fight communism and the encroachment of communism in this country and all over Europe. And here we find them employed in the State Department."

Nor, be it noted, did House Appropriations neglect to file a report about these matters. A few weeks after this hearing was completed, the panel submitted a report to Congress, which, inter alia, discussed the Lee list (the report that Sen. Tydings quite specifically tells us was not submitted). This document informs us:

"Files on the prospective employees were active, and the individuals at the time of the investigation were being considered for employment, even though information of record pointed to their being poor risks. The committee does not feel that the department has been as diligent as it might have been in the selection of its personnel. . .and has not sufficiently exercised the prerogative given it under the so-called McCarran rider.... It would seem to the committee that any doubt in connection with the employment of personnel in the Department of State should be resolved in favor of the United States. . ."