◆ SpookStack

Se ot tte oatmeal ntetainde atid ' _ Following ore extracts from the testimony of. William “F, Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General hondling the ‘Interpal-security program, ‘before the Senate Subcom- '. mittee on Government Employes’ Security Program on Sept. 27,1955: ee a prosecutions Into the scope of employe security, I think ‘you are confusing the issue. ” - a o Mf you will recall, Maclean and Burgess in the Brit- ‘ish White Paper could not be prosecuted. There was no violation of law that they could be prosecuted. Yet, ernment blind, So that in, every loyalty case, we can't ., Or false’ statements and I tell you, I think there is’ prob- ably roughly about 10 or 15 cases of that type. you have a question of whether you want to disclose _ Informants; you have'd question of possibly where the - statute of limitations as run on some of these cases _drankly, in a vacuum, ** Maclean or Benedict Arnold? ee You can’t try a man for his thoughts. "Mr, Tompkins (continuing): as to Burgess and Mac-: .. Jeans in both Instances, there was _ formation, isn’t that correct? -° | ight that ‘same evening, May 25, “did nat become known y When the security authorities Were on their track.” Was Burgess, then, also being watched? There is nothing else in simply that he had been asked to resign after the Ambassa- ie authorities cannot have it both ways. If there was sus- clon of esplo: age White Pa r. is autores had no Vidently hac ' een caught napping. . |. :*= "Phe mystery is deepened by the Jast weekend that it. was now believed that both men were long term agents” for the Soviet Union. Petrov has said so, And his testimony is accepted, but on British evidence the part of Burgess has not been brought to Hight. ~~ GENERAL SAYS:” a. ‘.lHave Caught British Spies... _ Me. Tompkins: ; i. Now, just remember this, when. - “you are talking wbout prosecutions and trying to bring as you and I know, they certainly stole the British Gov- ° - “prosecute but there are instances where there {s perjury . However, just remember this in prosecutions also, — and you haye a question of evidence that sometimes is, not admissible so that you just can't consider it, very | Paul &, Haditek (of the ‘Subconimittee legal stn): - ‘No security program would really catch a Burgess. or .. Me. Tompkins: Well, Mr. Hadlick det me say this ~ “7 AAT, Baditn: prior derogatory ins ‘ to the authorities until the morning of Monday, May. 28.” _ They had cut themselves off from all means of knowing...” , Another point, less serious but no less bewildering, is that | he White Paper says’ that the two ‘men left the. country - he White Paper to suggest it, The evidence produced fs. tin’ Washington had reported.on his personal behaviour, - | age in his case the eviderice should be in the =” the such suspicions, they: Foreign Office statement © Equally unsatisfactory is the way in which the White . en ee ee = ms A a cS et Mr, Hadlich: I believe you are right but nothing was done about it. a -.. Mr, Tompkins; Nothing was done in Great Britain, bet TF Yow are relating Burgess and Maclean and derog- “ ntory information Tsay T believe that, under our pro- gram, that would have been gotten, -: _ Mr. Hadlick: Did we ask them to remove the gentle- men from this country as part of this Mr. Tompkins: I honestly don't know that, that ., would be a State Department question, : e o * Senator Carlson (Senator Frank Carlson (Rep.), of . Kansas, a member of the Subcommittee}; Mr. Chair- man, just this point—did Cumderstand you to state that under executive order 10450 you have located some individuals that might be regarded as security risks? Mr, Tompkins: Oh, yes, sir, 2 ; Senator Cartson: And some have been convicted? ~ Mr. Tompkins: There have been some convictions. - Senator Castson: 1 believe you said 10 or 15? _Mr,_Tompkins: [think [ bave a note here on that. _ Senator Carlson: 2 don't care for an accurate state- ‘ment. The statement has been made around here Uhat there have been ne cowietions and 1 think the. reeord 2 - Mr Tompkings Well, Senator, that fs what J already tried to explain. You can’t cousider prosecutions and’ . the security ‘program ‘as.one big bundle and that ts ‘where T gave the Maclean and Burgess ‘example, You. _ "y might have a man who is unfit for Government service “and you might have e min who isa member of 9 or 10 - Communist fronts but he can’t be prosecuted, bat you | ‘have got to‘get him out of the Gevernment, sir. oe cae a ee ah a A AB ¥ ye Paper deals with the manner in which the two ‘men were °.- - “kept for so Jong in the Foreign Service. All questions of Spy ot. ing apart, their personal behaviour at times should’ have °° _taised” far ‘stronger™and earlier questionings about their (i. suitability for responsible work, Stories of. their drinking ©. ~ bouts were common talk in Loudon. Were they the men to , ~ be-trusted with State secrets? Did the authorities go on to (2 » ask what was the root cduse of the evident strains which the | men were under? mo fase It ts good to be reminded in the White Paper that, since “y-.dhe disappearance of the two men, security in the Foreign |” Service has been tightened and that more searching inquiries |. -- fre now made Into the characters and antecedents of candi- 4. “dates and members. The whole affair calls for full, honest _ scrutiny before the forum of Parliament; and there must he > no disposition, as there has been on earlier occasions, to | score party points. The record of the Foreign Service is second to none for steadfastness, hard work, and loyalty, but. the Hotise [of Commons] will have searching and important questions to ask, coors = sah re