Part: 123456789         Session: 1         Page na123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191 of 191

Government, because I was often asked, you know, “Would you employ this man?”

At first I would say, “Well, I would employ him in some capacities, yes, but I would not employ him in a confidential capacity, or in a capacity where he dealt with figures and facts that related to the policies of the United States, or where he had any say whatever about the development of policy--because I don't know what he would be thinking about besides the problem that I had given him. I had given him a problem to think out on the basis of which, presumably, the Government is going to take action. He has some other thoughts going on, too, because he is a Communist. And he blends them, and he hands me an innocent looking report, document, which I might be led to sign, or to promulgate as official Covernment policy. So that I don't think I would continue them, if they were really Communists. On the other hand, I would be very cagy about that a fellow was a Communist or that there was ‘reasonable doubt of his loyalty’”

That's the way the finding read: “There is reasonable doubt of his loyalty.” Now, what makes “reasonable doubt”? Because he would deny all these charges, you see. The man who admitted them was no problem. The separated him at once, and that was that. But the man who denied it all, but where the testimony loomed up bigger and bigger and bigger against him,