◆ SpookStack

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS . Security System Would * J. Have Caught British Spies . Following ore extracts from the testimony of. William F, Tompkins, Assistant Attorney General hondling the interpal-security program, before th jate Subcom- ., mittee on Government Employes’ Security Program on Sept. 27, 1955: : SMe, Tompkins: ; : « Now, just remember this, when - “you are tw t ing about prosecutions and trying to bring prosecutions into the scope of employe security, I think you are. confusing ‘the issue. Hfsyou 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 proscented. Yet, as you and 1 know, they certainly stole the British Gov- ernment blind, So that in, every loyalty case, we can't “prosecute but there are instances i there fs perjury or false statements and I tell you, I think there is prob- ably roughly about 10 ce 15 cases of that type. . , However, just remember this in prosecutions also, you have a question of whether you want to disclose informants; you have’ question of possibly where the statute of limitations’ has run on some of thes and you haye a question of evidence t not admissible so that you just can’t co sider it, very ty _Maclean or ‘Arnold? 2s ; ~ Mr. Tompkins: Well, Mr. Hadlick, let me say this—", nem Hadifens You can't try a man for his houghts, Me, Tompkins (continuing): 2s to Burgess and Mac- lean, in bah Instances, there was prior derogatory in- formation, isn’t that correct? ” . : > flight that ‘same evening, May 25, “did not become known “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 the White Paper says’ that the two ‘men left the country ‘when the security authorities were on their track.” Was tgess, then, also being watched? There is nothing else in ‘White Paper to suggest {t.The evidence produced fs é, Simply that he had been asked to resign after the Ambassa- dor in Washington had ted on his personal behaviour. -. - Bt bey : the disappeatatice of the two men, security in the Foreign The authorities cannot have'it both ways. If there was sus: lon of esplo: age in his case the eviderice should be in the ¥ ite ra T. 1g the authorities had no such suspicions, the! evident! id! een caught napping. a : ‘The mystery is acepened by the Foreign Office statement last weekend that it. was now believed that both men were rivlong-term agents” for the Soviet Union. Petrov has said so, ; and his testimony is accepted, but on British evidence the part b:.f Burgess has not been brought to ight. ~ Equally unsatisfactory is the way in which the White t sometimes is, Mr, Hadlick: I believe you are right but nothing was done about it Mr, Tompkins: Nothing was done in Great Britain, * * but Yow are rohuting Burge: y and derog. atory information TP say T believe inder 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: - wail bear State Department q eee Senator Carlson [Senator Frank Carlson (Rep.), of Kansas, a member of the Subcommittee}: Mr. Chair- man, just this point—did Limderstand 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. Senator Carlson: And some have been convicted? Mr Tompkins: There have been some convictions, Senator Carlson: 1 believe you said 10 or 15? Mr, Tompkins: [think £ have a note here on that, Senator Carlson: | con't ment. The statement has bee there have been ne convict “should be clarified on that. Spek me Me. Tompkings. Wi that is what ¥ already tried to explain. You can’t cousider prosecutions and _ the security program ‘as .one big bundle and that is - Where T gave the’ Maclean and Burgess ‘example, You “might have a man who is unfit for Government service and you might have w min who isa member of 9 or 10 Comminist fronts but he can’t be prosceuted, but you have got to‘get him ont of the Gavernment, sir. | Paper deals with the manner in which the two ‘men were kept for so long in the Fareiga Service, All questions of ing apart, their pe f ‘aised far “stronger*’and earlier questionings about. their ability 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 ask what was the root ciuse of the evident strains which the men were. under? ; a It ts good to be reminded in the White Paper that, "Service has been tightened and that more scarching inquiries .tre now made fnto the characters and antecedents of can dates and members. The whole affair calls for full, hon scrutiny before the furum of Parliament; and there must be 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 Hottse [of Commons] will have searching and Importunt questions to ask, al behaviour imes have 7°