Information on Lattimore, Jessup, Service, and Hanson Cases
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. President, first I should like to pay tribute to 13 people who have been of unlimited help to me in this matter, and without whose night and day work it would not have been possible to assemble the facts which have been assembled to date. If the work is effective in accomplishing what we hope it will, the thanks of the Senate should go to those people, who are my staff.
I shall be glad to yield freely during the speech. However, I crave the indulgence of Senators not to ask me to yield until I have reached the point of presenting certain documentary evidence in the Lattimore case. I believe that questions asked of me before that time would be premature. Therefore, I shall decline to yield until I have presented certain documentary evidence in the Lattimore case.
Mr. President, before going into matters which I think might be of interest to the Senate in the Lattimore, Jessup, Service, and Hanson cases, I thought it might be well to clear the air and record in regard to two matters.
As the Senate knows, there has been considerable criticism by a number of well-meaning people of the naming of names in public before the individuals have had an opportunity to be heard.
It might be well, therefore, to briefly cite the record as to why names have been named in public rather than in private. On the 20th of February, as the Senate will recall, I gave to the Senate in some detail 81 cases of individuals whom I stated the files indicated ranged all the way from being bad security risks to very dangerous individuals.
At that time I pointed out that perhaps some of those individuals would be able to produce facts to offset the effect of the material in the files and show that they were actually loyal employees. I stated in effect--and while I have not had an opportunity to check the number of times in the record, my office tells me that I did so over a dozen times--that I would consider it extremely improper and unfair to name names in public before the individuals had a chance to appear in executive session.
The leader of the majority [Mr. LuCAS], however, on five separate occasions demanded that the names be publicly named. His first demand was on page 2043 of the RECORD. Again on page 2046, he had this to say:
I want to remain here until he names them. That is what I am interested in.
Again on page 2049, he said:
Will the Senator tell us the name of the man for the RECORD? We are entitled to know who he is. I say this in all seriousness.
Again on page 2053, he said:
The Senator should name names before that commitee.
Again on page 2063, he said:
Why does the Senator refuse to divulge names before the Senate?
The very able Senator from Kentucky [Mr. WITHERS] also on almost countless occasions asked me for the names, stating on page 2063:
Does the Senator realize that I, like all others, am curious to know the names? When the Senator gives the cases, the people and the country at large are entitled to know who they are.
At that time, in answer to the urging of the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Kentucky, I stated that I would not give the names in public unless a majority of the Senate demanded that they be made public, and this is all a matter of record.
After the subcommittee had been appointed and the Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS] made chairman, he saw me on the floor of the Senate and stated that a public hearing had been scheduled, and asked if I would be ready to appear and testify. At that time I urged that the hearings be in executive session, and reminded him of the statements which I had made on the Senate floor.
He informed me that the first hearings would be public, and that later we would go into executive session. Later I was informed by the press that the Senator from Maryland had made the state-