Iii innt. I have no douhl as to his loyalty,
and I have absolutely no douhl about
his value' to the United States, and I
would say he is nol a security risk to
the United States.
Cross-Examination by Roger Robb,
counsel for the hoard
• • •
Q. I would likr in ask vmi a few
hypothetical questions, if I mighl. sir.
Suppose v..u had a branch bank manager, and a Friend uf his came to him
one deiv emd seii.l. "] have semie Friends
and contacts who arc thinking aboul
coming to your hank to rob it. I would
like lo tedk to you aboul maybe leaving
the veiull open some nighl su thev could
do it," emd vour branch manager rejected the suggestion. Would vou expecl
thai branch manager to reporl the incident':'
Q. If he didn't reporl it, would you
be disiiirl.nl aboul il ?
Q. Lei us go a little bil further. Supposing the branch hank manager wailed
six or eight months to reporl il. would
><>ii be rather concerned aboul why he
had nol dime it before?
I,). Suppose when he did reporl it, he
said ihi- Friend of mine, a good friend
"I mine, I am sure he weis innocenl
and therefore 1 won't tell vou who he is.
would vmi be concerned aboul that?
Would villi urge him lo lull you?
A. I would certainly urge him lu lull
nic fur the security of the bank.
1,1. \eew. supposing your branch bank
manager, in telling you lhe story uf bis
conversations wilh his friend, said, "My
friend told mr thai these people lhal he
kimws lhal want tn rob the bank told
We lhat they betel ei pretty good plan.
I In v had some tear gas and gnus einel
thej had ee car arranged fur the getaway, and had everything all fixed up."
Would vmi conclude from lhal it wees ;i
pretty well-defined plot?
Q. Now. supposing sonic years later
this branch manager told vmi. "Mr.
Met ||oy, I I..1.1 v..ii lhal my friend and
his friends had ei scheme all sel up as I
'lave told vim. with tear gas eunl guns
■nul getaway car, hill lhal weis el lol nl
'"ink. ll jusl wasn't true. I told vim a
false sinrv about my friend." Would
you he ei bil puzzled as lo why he would
WI vmi such a false slnrv about bis
\. ~i ,s. I iliiiik I would he
• • •
0. i (Tiairman Gordon Graj i Have
Vou Heul the Idler of December 23 from
'"'lured Nichols lu Dr. Oppenheimer,
"nil Dr. Oppenheimer's nplv perhaps as
"iry appeared in lhe press?
\. 'i is. I ilidn'i read them critically,
'"il I know pre itv much whal is in them
'"■' .in-, I read them rather hastily.
Q. Is ibis the first knowledge you bad
of ihr reported associations of Dr. Oppenheimer?
A. No. I think I heard somewhere
about a year ago. and I can't place
where 1 heard it. thai there was some
question aboul Dr. Oppenheimer's early
associations, lhal his brother or wife
had been a Communist, ll was within a
year lhal I heard it.
Q. Mr. iMcCloy, following Mr. Robb's
hypothetical question for the moment,
Id us go further than his assumption.
I.d us say thai ultimately you did gel
frnm your branch manager ihe name of
lhe individual who had approached him
with respeel to leaving the vault open,
and suppose' further thai your branch
manager weis. senl by vou on an inspection hip of some of your Foreign
branches, and suppose further lhal you
learned lhal while he was in London he
looked up lhe man who had made lln
approach lo him sonic years before,
would ibis he a source uf concern lo
A. Yes, I think it would, ll is certainly something worthy of investigation; VI-
0. Now, Mr. McCloy, you said in referring lu Dr. Oppenheimer lhal hr
miur than perhaps anybody else is responsible for our pre-eminence in the
Field nf the weapon. You are' referring
nnw In ihr atomic bomb?
\. 'i is. lhe atomic bomb.
• • •
Q, Would vmi take a calculated risk
with respeel lo ihe security nl your
A. 1 take a calculated risk every day
in mv bank.
Q. Would vmi leave someone in
charge of the vanils aboul whimi you
have anv doubl in your mind?
A. No. I probably wouldn't.
• ■ •
A. ... I don'l Ihink 1 can get the pal
analogy to the bank vault man. Bul Iel
me sen. suppose thai the man in charge
of my vaults knew more aboul protection and knew more about the intricacies of time locks than anybody else
in the world, I mighl ihink twice before
I Iel him go because I would balance
the risks in this connection. ...
• • •
A. One of my tasks in German) was
lo pick up Nazi scientists and send them
nver io the United States. These Nazi
scientists a few years before wen- doing
their utmost to overthrow the I nited
Stairs governmenl by violence. Tiny
had a very suspicious background. They
are being used nnw. I assume whether
thev arc still, I don'l know because I
am nul in contact with il on very sensitive projects in spile nf llieir background. The Defense Departmenl has
been certainly In some extenl dependent
upon German scientists in connection
with guided missiles. I suppose other
PACTS FORUM NEWS, August, 1955
things being equal, vou would like lo
have a perfectly pure, uncontaminated
chap, wilh no background, lo deal with
ll things, bul il is not possible in this
world. I think vou do have to lake risks
in regard In lhe security uf lhe country.
\s I saiel al lhe beginning, even if they
put . . . anybody in charge nf ihe innermost secrets of our defense system.
there is a risk there. You can't avoid
the necessity of balancing lo some degree
So I re-emphasize from looking at it.
I would think I would come lo lhe conclusion if I wen' Secretary of War. let
us balance all the considerations here
and lake lhe calculated risk. Il is loo
bad you have in calculate sometimes.
Rul in lhe lasl analysis, you have lo calculate whal is best fnr the 1 nited Slales.
because ... it is jusl as weak as the
Maginol Line in terms of security.
• • •
Q. (Dr. Ward V. Evans) And you
Ihink we should lake some chances fm
fear we might disquality someone wine
might do us a lol of irood?
A. Yes. 1 do.
• • •
Q. You Ihink lhal there arc verv few
scientists thai could do Dr. Oppenheimer's work?
A. Thai is mv impression.
f). Thai is. ve.u Ihink he knows perhaps mure eiliinii this, as you mentioned
in vour vault business, than anybody
else in lhe world?
A. I wouldn't seiv thai: nn. But I
would certainly pul him in the Fore-
0. And vou would lake a little chance
em ei man that has greal value?
\. Yes, I would, particularly in llu
light nf his nlhci ria uril. al leasl insiifeii
as I know ii. I can'l divorce myself frnm
my own impression nf Dr. Oppenheimer
and whal appeals to mi' as his frankness.
integrity, and his scientific background.
I would accept a considerable amount of
political immaturity, let me put il lhal
way, in return fnr ihis rather esoteric,
ihi.- rather indefinite theoretical dunking thai I believe we are going in he
dependent on for the nexl generation.
Q. That is. yon would look nver llie
peelitie'eil iiiimeiturily and possible subversive connections and give the great
-inss iii his scientific information;
■\. Provided I sav*. indications which
were satisfactory In me thai he had reformed or matured.
Redirect Examination hy Mr. Garrison
» • •
Q. ... Is il your opinion thai in the
light of the character, associations, eunl
loyally of Dr. Oppenheimer as you have
known him. thai ins continued einr-s in
restricted data would nol endanger the
common defense and security?
A. That is my opinion.