◆ SpookStack

. * \ . . a, » Memorandum for @MSEREeS from L. B. Nichols question of loyalty, integrity or honesty came up they would be more correct to inquire as to what facts do they possess reflecting upon loyalty and integrity; that it was assumed that when.we asked such questions-that the answer would be predicated upon facts and if opinions were expressed or contusions it was the duty o | Agents as well as their instructions to inquire for the facts upon which conclusions and opinions are directed. . ; The conversation then got off on the subject of conscientious objectors and I was somewhat surprised at the attitude of both Mr. Hoskins and Mr, Cary, who pointed out that the true conscientious objector is hard at times to determine; that they had scalawags in their own organization who were . not honest in arriving at a basis of conscientious objection. I did not participate in this discussion other than to point out that we were very conscious of the delicate ness of such investigations which were imposed upon us by an Act of Congress, the criteria of which are sct by the Department and the Courts. I then pointed out that . each inquiry was directed toward a specific objective; that if the objective merely was to verify employment, sccure biographical data we would not want to go any further than the personnel office, but if as in a recent case, the applicant had been employed by the Committee and. the supervisor under whom the employee worked ’ had a long and intimate knowledge of the employee's background, the employee . had been out of the country on special missions, that in such instances we felt that we could not fully discharge our responsibilities unless we personally interviewed the supervisor; that we had no desire to interview a half dozen or so people in _ | their organization or for that matter to interview any one other than the head of ~ Personnel unless there was some real reason. They both conceded that this was __ valid. They both felt that if the written statement which they would furnish us ~ did not suffice that we should feel very free to come back to them and secure _*_additygnal information, ._. . . ee - I reiterated again that what they did was, of course, a matter of their own concern and that if they preferred not to be interviewed, we would issue instructions to our Philadelphia Office that they not be contacted, Both reacted rather vigorously to this and pointed out that they wanted to be of service and we.ated to help and felt obligated to help, but they were troubled in passing judgment on a person's loyalty or integrity. Itold them that as far as we were concerned we were not asking for judgments, we were asking for facts and we were not concérned with ideas and thoughts and opinions, moe ciekeathipl dieemiauean TET t Aiea