Part: 123456789         Session: 1         Page na123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191 of 191

evidence. But they want to know what it is, and they want to raise the roof because thereis something that says that “we think this man's a Communist.” Somebody else says, “we don't think he is.”

I used the word “witch hunt”--is that a word that you would use in describing this?

No, I would not use the word witch hunt.

What word would you use?

I don't know what I would use. I, of course, would never have proceeded in this way. I think that the way the British proceeded when they found themselves up against a similar situation is a much more intelligent way, and a way that is in the British tradition and I think in the American tradition.

When they found a case against an individual, they pursued it to the ground. They then heard him, and they had the head of his Department hear him and talk with him, and they weighed his service to the Government against the charges against him, and they removed him from the particular job he was doing if it was a job where anything that he might do or say would give aid and comfort, we'll say, to the Communists. They put him in another post. They put him in some less exposed and less sensitive post. And only in a very few cases