(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Testimony of Dr. Edward U. Condon. Hearing before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eighty-second Congress, second session. September 5, 1952"

rS" 



t 



%9i2LAL}tll/^^ 




^^;I3:s 



Bi 



3^ 



l^^TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 



7. -■ • v^ /»--'■■- -y >wc^AA^ • \~'^-'^'^<^L.t ''■J^-f-r". j^.L 



HEARING 



BEFORE THE 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIYITIES 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EIGHTY-SECOND CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 



SEPTEMBER 5, 1952 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Un-American Activities 




PDBLIC 



UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTmG OFFICB 
24089 WASHINGTON : 1952 



\A i 



COMMITTEE ON UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES 

United States House of Representatives 

JOHN S. WOOD, Georsia, Chairman 

FRANCIS B. WALTER, Pennsylvania HAROLD H. VELDB, Illinois 

MORGAN M. MOULDER, Missouri BERNARD W. KEARNEY, New York 

CLYDE DOYLE, California DONALD L. JACKSON. California 

JAMES B. FRAZIER, Jr., Tennessee CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan 

t'RAXK S. Tavenxeu, Jr.. Coimael 

Louis J. Russell, Senior Investigator 

John W. Carrington, Clerk of Committee 

Raphael I. Nixon, Director of Research 

II 



TESTIMONY OF DK. EDWAKD U. CONDON 



FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1952 

United States House of Representatives, 

subcommiitee of the committee 

ON Un"- American Acttvities, 

Chicago^ III, 

public hearing 

A subcommittee of tlie Committee on Un-American Activities met, 
pursuant to recess, at 2 p. m., in room 237, Federal Building, 219 
South Clark Street, Chicago, 111., Hon. Francis E. Walter presiding. 

Committee members present: Representatives Francis E. Walter, 
Morgan M. Moulder, Harold H. Velde, and Donald L. Jackson. 

Staff members present: Frank S. Tavenner, Jr., counsel; Thomas 
W. Beale, 8r., assistant counsel; Louis J. Russell, senior investigator; 
C. E. McKillips, William Jackson Jones, James A. Andrews, and 
Alvin Stokes, investigators; Raphael I. Nixon, director of research; 
and John W. Carrington, clerk. 

Mr. Walter, The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Tavenner, are you ready? 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Yes, sir. I would like to call Dr. Condon, Dr. Ed- 
ward U. Condon. 

JNIr. Walter. Will you raise your right hand. You swear the 
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Dr. Condon. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF DE. EDWAED U. CONDON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, KENNETH SPENCE 

Mr. Tavenner. Mr. Chairman [addressing Representative Francis 
E. Walter, acting chairman], the chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Wood, who was unavoidably detained temporarily, prepared a state- 
ment last night to present at this time, and I have it here, and do 
you desire to have it or what disposition would you have made of it? 

Mr. Walter. Before you [addressing Mr. Tavenner] read the chair- 
man's statement. Dr. Condon, are you represented by counsel? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, sir ; my counsel is Mr. Kenneth Spence of New 
York City, who is here in the room. 

Mr. Walter. If you desire to have counsel with you, wliy, of course, 
it is entirely proper. 

Dr. Condon. I think it is not necessary, if I may be permitted to 
confer with him if the occasion arises. 

Mr. Walter. All right, Mr. Tavenner. 

383S 



3834 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavenner. This is the statement of the chairman to be made 
to Dr. Condon, which I will read in his absence : 

Dr. Condon, in 1948 a subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties of tlie House of Representatives issued a report concerning you. In keeping 
with committee policy, since I have been chairman, all persons whose names 
have been adversely reflected upon in testimony before the committee time and 
again have been invited by public pronouncement to appear before the com- 
mittee and make such denial or explanation as may be proper. 

In addition to this general invitation, I announced publicly in February of 
1949 and in June of 1949 that the committee would hear you if you requested 
it. Notwithstanding these invitations, as recently as March of this year, Rep- 
resentative W. Sterling Cole, of your own New York congressional district, who 
inserted certain statements made by you in the Congressional Record, referred 
to the fact that while numerous charges had been made against you, you had not 
had an opportunity to answer these charges in public session. Therefore in 
June of 1952 you were extended a written invitation to appear before the com- 
mittee, which you rejected. 

The committee now feels that you should be questioned under oath regarding 
your associations and activities, so in June of this year the committee decided 
to require your attendance before the committee at this time. 

Dr. Condon, when and where were you born ? 

Dr. Condon. On March 2, 1902, in Alamogordo, N, Mex. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where do you now reside? 

Dr. Condon. In Corning, N. Y. 

Mr. Tav'enner. Will you furnish to the committee,, please, a brief 
.account of your educational training? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I was educated in various grammar schools out 
West, and a large number of different ones. I went to high school in. 
Oakland, Calif., and had my undergraduate and graduate university 
training at the University of California, receiving a doctor's degree 
in physics in 1926. I can give more detail if you like. 

Sir. Tavenner. I think that that is sufficient. 

What is your present employment, or occupation ? 

Dr. Condon. I am director of research and development of the 
Corning Glass Works of Corning, N. Y. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long have you held that position? 

Dr. Condon. Since October 1, of last year. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. Will 3^ou outline, please, briefly, what your record 
of employment was prior to your employment with the Corning Glass 
Co.? 

Dr. Condon. Well, perhaps the thing to do is start with graduation, 
receiving my doctor's degree in 1926. The following year was spent 
in Germany doing postgraduate study on a fellowship of the Inter- 
national Education Board. I returned to New York City in October 
of 1927 on the staff of the Bell Telephone Laboratories. In January 
of 1928 I became lecturer in physics at Columbia University, and 
the following year I was assistant professor of physics at Princeton 
University and the year after that I was full professor of theoretical 
physics at the University of Minnesota, and the year after that I 
returned to Princeton. That, by the way, is now getting up to the 
spring of 1930. 

I returned to Princeton University as associate professor of physics, 
and I remained there until 1937 when I became an associate director 
of research of the Westinghouse Electric Corp., at that time known 
as the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. What was the date cf the beginning of your employ- 
ment with the Westinghouse Electric Co. ? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3835 

Dr. CoNDOx. Well, it was the fall, perhaps around September of 
1937. I remained in that position until November of 1945, when I 
was appointed Director of the National Bureau of Standards in the 
Department of Commerce, and this is a Presidential appointment with 
Senate confirmation. 

I remained in that position until I joined the Corning Glass Works'" 
staff in October 1 of last year. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have before me a list of members of the National 
Advisory Committee of Aeronautics? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. This list comprises many prominent people, in the 
Armed Forces and elsewhere in the United States. Of the Armed 
Forces I see the name of Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, James H. Doo- 
little; and among the scientists I see the name of Dr. Edward U. 
Condon. 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Ta^t.nner. Did you serve as a member of that committee? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, that is, actually I think it is important to realize 
that that committee is really a Federal agency and my membership 
on that is provided by statute automatically, the Director of the Bu- 
reau of Standards is almost automatically on or ex officio a member 
of that committee, and so I did serve on that. 

In that sense, in the way of elaboration, there are various other 
sorts of auxiliary Federal positions that went with my major posi- 
tion, but I only drew one salary, the one for the Bureau of Standards. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. So then you were a member of the National Ad- 
visory Committee for Aeronautics during the entire period you were 
Director of the Bureau of Standards ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right, in accordance with the statute. 
_ Mr. Tavenner. Did you cease to become a member when you re- 
signed from your position ? 

Dr. Condon. Automatically ; that is right. 

INIr. Ta\'enner. As Director of the Bureau of Standards. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. What are the other positions which you held by 
virtue of your appointment as Director of the Bureau of" Standards"? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I will do my best, there are so many of them I 
can't remember them all, perhaps. I was a member of the North At- 
lantic Iceberg Commission, which never met during the entire time I 
was in the Government service. 

I was a member of the Federal Fire Council, which never met during 
the entire time I was in the Federal Service. But actively I was Chai]> 
man of a thing that is known as the Federal Specifications Board 
which is responsible for providing the uniform purchase specifications 
for commodities and supplies bought by the Federal Government. 
^ There was another thing that was set up by executive order, I be- 
lieve, to be called the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific Re- 
search and Development and I was the Department of Commerce 
member on that. 

Mr. Ta\'enner. What were the duties of that organization ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I don't remember. It was more or less a group 
that had representation over all of the executive branches for the pur- 
pose of giving the President advice and views about policy questions 
affecting Government support of scientific research, and related ques- 



3836 TESTIMONY OF DK. EDWARD U. CONDON 

tions like the way in Tvhich the draft and manpower requirements 
affect the research program and thinj^s of that sort. 

Now, there may have been a few other things, but if they come out 
from time to time — but those were certainly the ones of major im- 
portance. 

Mr. Tavenner. Briefly, what were the duties of the National Ad- 
visory Committee for Aeronautics ? 

Dr. CoxDON. That is established by the statute. It is an inde- 
pendent agency of the Government which was set up about the time 
of World War I and although the name committee would suggest 
just a small group, it is actually an agency that operates several major 
research laboratories under Government sponsorship throughout the 
country, and in general support of basic research on the development 
of improved aircraft. 

Mr. Tavenner. That, of course, would relate to all types of classi- 
fied and secret information regarding the national defense. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, yes, a good share of their program is classified. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Condon, you have indicated that in approxi- 
mately September 1937 you accepted employment with the Westing- 
house laboratories at Pittsburgh, Pa. In what type of work was the 
Westinghouse laboratories engaged at that time ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, it was a general industrial research and de- 
velopment i^rogram directed toward improvement of their electrical 
products, a very diversified program. My particular part was con- 
cerned with strengthening the work in basic physics, including the 
initiation of work in the field of nuclear physics. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have a title ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes; I was associate director of the laboratory. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of your duties with the Westing- 
house laboratory, were you a consultant on the war research projects 
which were then being performed at the radiation laboratories of the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology at Cambridge, Mass. ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tavenner. And the University of California at Berkeley, 
Calif.? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, at various times; not during the entire period, 
of course. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, during the course of the performance of your 
duties, did you become familiar with the development of the atomic 
bomb ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; I was a member of the original committee that 
recommended that the Government set up the Manhattan District. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, during this period when you were employed 
by Westinghouse laboratories, did you consider taking an assignment 
with the Manhattain Engineering District at Los Alamos, N. Mex., 
which was charged with the specific duty of developing the bomb ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; I was out there for a short time, about a month. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, were you assigned to temporary duty there? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wlien did you go to Los Alamos ? 

Dr. Condon. I can't remember the exact elates, but it was more or 
less March or April of 1942, I believe, or maybe 1943, I would have 
to do a little cliecking. We can check back but it was 1943, I am 
quite sure, on second thought. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3837 

Mr. Tavenner. And I understood you to say you remained there 
approximately a month? 

Dr. Condon. About a month; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, during that period of time, the 1 month when 
you were there, what was the general nature of your duties ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I had the title 

?^Ir. Tavenner. I don't want you to state anything of a secret nature. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, no, I wouldn't do that ; I never do. I had title 
of associate director of this, and as such was second in command to 
Eobert Oppenheimer, who was the director, and at that particular time 
it was sort of just starting to emerge from the status of being a 
construction camp over to the status of being a research laboratory 
and people were moving in and equipment was being set up, so that the 
problems were pretty largely administrative rather than scientific. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, during that period of time, did you have 
occasion to have access to scientific developments as they were pro- 
ceeding at Los Alamos ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, yes ; certainly there weren't any proceedmg m 
that month, but I had access to all of the prior knowledge that was 
the basis for setting up the laboratory ; yes. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. The committee is in possession of a copy of a letter 
which you submitted to Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, setting forth your 
reasons for rejecting the position at Los Alam.os project. I desire to 
read the letter, the entire letter, chiefly because I don't want any part 
of it to be taken out of context. 

Dr. Condon. I think that is splendid. 

Mr. Tavenner (reading) : 

Los Alamos, Santa Fe., N. Mex. 



Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, Los Alamos 

Incidentally, the copy is not dated. Do you recall the date when 
you sent that letter? 

Dr. Condon. Well, it is about April of 1943, I have a copy that is 
dated, but I don't have it with me. I could supply that. 

Dear Robert: This letter will serve to put in the record some of the things 
which we have discussed during the past week which have led to my decision 
not to accept a permanent connection with the Los Alamos project and to return 
to the Westinghouse Research Laboratories at East Pittsburgh. 

First let me apologize for failure to emphasize the tentativeness of the situa- 
tion in which I have been during the past month. This came about because I . 
initially felt quite sure that I would decide to stay, and secondly because I 
thought that if the tentativeness were too much stressed it would interfere with 
my settling down and trying to be useful at once. 

In trying to be clear about the reasons for the decision I suppose it boils 
down to this : With additional knowledge of detailed needs of the project I was 
unable to get a strong conviction that I am decidedly more useful to the war here 
than at Westinghouse. Since the change would entail considerable personal 
sacrifice, I do not feel justified in making it. I do not see how such a view could 
have been reached without my coming here to see the problem at first hand. 

I am happy that you are generous enough to feel that I was of a little help 
during the first month. It will always be my hope to be able to help from a dis- 
tance in any way that I can. There are many ways in which the technical re- 
sources with which Westinghouse could aid this project are as yet unexplored. 
Naturally, however, I will not take any initiative on this at home as being incon- 
sistent with security policy. But if your people or others in related projects 
approach me with special needs I am sure that I will be in a better position to 
help because of the background I now possess. 

There may be some point in making some general observations based on my 
brief experience. My own decision of course was weighted pretty heavily with 



3838 TESTIMONl' OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

personal factors which are not of general interest so I will skip them except in- 
sofar as they seem likely to be things that would also concern other people. 

The tiling which upsets me most is the extraordinarily close security policy. 
I do not feel qualified to question the wisdom of this since I am totally unaware 
of the extent of enemy espionage and sabotage activities. I only want to say that 
in my case I found that the extreme concern with security was njorbidly de- 
pressing — especially the discussion about censoring mail and telephone calls, the 
possible militarization and complete isolation of the personnel from the outside 
world. I know that before long all such concerns would make me be so depressed 
as to be of little if any value. I think a great many of the other people are apt 
to be this way, otherwise I wouldn't mention it. . 

An aspect of this policy for which I am completely at a loss to find justification 
is the tendency to isolate this group intellectually from the key members of the 
other units of the whole project. While I had heard that there were to be some 
restrictions, I can say that I was so shocked that I could hardly believe my ears 
when General Groves undertook to reprove us, though he did so with exquisite 
tact and courtesy, for a discussion which you had concerning an important 
technical question with A. H. Compton. To me the absence from the conference 
of such men as A. H. Compton, E. O. Lawrence, and H. C. Urey was an unfortu- 
nate thing but up to that time in your office last Monday I had put it down simply 
to their being too busy with other matters. 

I feel so strongly that this policy puts you in the position of trying to do an 
extremely difficult job with three hands tied behind your back that I cannot 
accept the view that such internal compartmentalization of the larger project is 
proper. My disturbance was complicated with the feeling that I might sooner 
or later unintentionally violate such rules through failure to comprehend them 
fully. On my way through Chicago coming out here I had a friendly chat with 
A. H. Compton about the project at his home which probably would be considered 
improper though if so I would say the scientific position of the project is hopeless. 
To speak of something more on the positive side, I feel that the laboratory 
is extremely well-staffed on the basic physics side. You have several first-rate 
young experimentalists in Williams, Manley, and Wilson, who will do a splendid 
job in setting up the equipment and getting useful results from it. If to these 
can be added a couple of maturer experimentalists like Allison, and Bacher, 
in addition to McIMillan, the success of this side of the project is assured. In 
the auxiliary fields like chemistry, with Kennedy and Segre, and metallurgy, 
Mith Cyril Smith. I do not think that you could have done better. The theo- 
retical group is, of course, extremely brilliant. As you know the ordnance side is 
the weak spot and the one which will require some first-rate specialized me- 
chanical engineering. This is one of the points at which I feel that Westing- 
house might be of effective help on special problems. 

The way the presence of such an excellent staff reacted on me was some- 
thing like this : I found myself in a role analogous to that of a military man 
who would suddenly shift from the Air Force to submarines in the middle of a 
war. I saw that I would face a great task of learning a job while surrounded 
with people who understood it much better than I. At the same time, adminis- 
tratively, I would have to make decisions affecting their technical activities. 
Of course there are many minor matters that I could have handled as a stuffed 
• shirt but I hope that that is not the best use of my abilities. 

Now to get back again to less agreeable matters. I am worried about a situa- 
tion which is not fully clear to me and perhaps is not as bad as my impression 
of it. I feel that an attempt is being made both by the Manhattan District 
and by the University of California to put too many restrictions on the activi- 
ies of Dr. D. P. Mitchell. We have roomed together since he came up to the 
site and I know that he feels baffled and perplexed by some of the things 
confronting him. He is working with a high expenditure of nervous energy and 
I think that he should get more backing, otherwise an irreplaceable man may 
be lost. (Please let it be clear that these things are my own observations, put 
forth on my own responsibility, that he has in no way suggested that I take this 
up, that in fact, I am taking it up more as a laboratory problem than as Mitchell's 
personal problem.) 

In the first place Dana Mitchell is an absolutely unique individual in America. 
He is a good physicist. In addition he has been buying equipment and supplies 
for experimental research projects for some 15 years, including recent experi- 
ence in setting up such service for several war research projects. Situated as we 
are in remote isolation the supply problem is unusually difficult. It is more- 
over extraordinarily difficult owing to war shortages. A man in Mitchell's posi- 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3839 

tion needs to have complete authority, freeclom of action, and responsibility 
within his field. A man of Mitchell's experience and competence should be 
given it unhesitatingly. Tlie only criticism of Mitchell 1 have ever heard is 
that it is said that he oversimplified his records and accounting procedures. 
I do not know whether this is true, in any case it is the kind of matter on which 
there is bound to be strong difference of opinion. 

What I would strongly recommend in this connection is that Mitchell be given 
complete control over all procurement, that it be absolutely definite that the 
Los Angeles office is under him, that he have full authority and responsibility 
in procurement matters, that the contractor do no more than set up accountants 
who record what he does, but that no person except yourself be in a position to 
question what he does. 

Finally there is the matter of the working relations with the local military 
people. On the whole they have done remarkably well in getting the post 
started. But I feel that there is much room for improvement although some 
of the present fault lies on me for I did not carry on effectively a lot of detail 
which I would have done if not so preoccupied with my personal decision. The 
worst trouble seems to be a lack of close communications. I fully expect that 
this will remedy itself when Colonel Harman and his staff take up residence 
here and an effective town council is organized. 

But there is also an unnecessary vagueness about many features of the town 
life with which the technical people are vitally concerned. The school situation 
is the most urgent. Many of the mothers are extremely anxious to know w'hat 
Is being done and how the schools are to be handled. These people come from 
good neighborhoods where there are good public schools. Many of them are 
more worried about the school here than anything else affecting their lives out 
of working hours. This matter gave me a great deal of personal concern and 
I know it is a factor that weighs heavily in Rabi's mind in his probable decision 
not to come. This situation was not helped with me by the way in which General 
Groves replied to my questions with a short plea for no "frills" when none had 
been asked for, together with what I felt were rather vague assurances that 
everything "necessary" would be provided. There is an awful lot of room for 
disagreement about the interpretation of the two words in quotes. 

As I have said, I am afraid that I have been at fault in not better organizing 
our relations with Colonel Harman's staff. In consequence, his people have 
been pestered with many conflicting requests from different individuals of our 
groixp some of whom thftv did not know. On their side I believe they have not 
been entirely in the right since so many of hisi people have shown a tendency to 
be taciturn and uncommunicative so that our people find it difficult to learn 
what procedures they need to follow. 

But these minor things are all of a kind that will work out in the next few 
months as people get acquainted. The school matter is much more critical. 
It will take decisive action very soon if a good school svstem is to be ready in 
the fall. 

I hope this long tirade is of some help to you and that my association with the 
project adds up to something more positive than negative. With all best wishes 
for a complete and timely success in the solution of the orimary proljlem of the 
project, and with the hope that I may be of some future help to you in it. 
Sincerely, 

(Signed) Ed Condon. 

I have a note here that the date of the letter was April 26, 1943, 
which is in accordance with your recollection. 

I desire to offer the copy of the letter in evidence and ask it be 
marked as "Condon Exhibit No. 1.'' 

Mr. Walter. It is received. 

(The document above referred to, marked "Condon Exhibit No. 1," 
is filed herewith.) 

Mr. Ta^^nner. I want to call your attention to the statement in your 
letter : 

I do not feel qualified to question the wisdom of this, since I am totally unaware 
of the extent of enemy espionage and sabotage activities. 

In other words, you were reluctant to accept the position because 
you could not persuade yourself that the security required was needed ? 

24089 — 52 2 



3S40 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Dr. Condon. I tliink that that represents my position correctly. 

Mr. Tavenner. You admit lack of knowledge of the extent of 
enemy espionage and sabotage activities'^ 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavennek. Yet yon were inclined to refuse appointment there 
because of the security rec{uired. Is that a correct statement ;■ 

Dr. Condon. On the question of refusing appointment, I hadn't 
ever accepted it in a final way in the first place, and secondly I was 
under no obligation to accept it, and I was in war work at Westing- 
house and my employers were very reluctant to have me go there 
at all, and so that I just decided as between two different kinds of 
war work to make the choice to work at Westinghouse on radar 
work. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you did not make that choice until after you 
had spent a month at Los Alamos ''i 

Dr. Condon. That is right, 

Mr, Tavenner, And the major factor in your making that decision 
was the security which was required? 

Dr. Condon, No ; not the security which in fact was required, but 
the security which they were proposing at that time. At the time 
in question it was being discussed that everybody on the project would 
be given a military commission and everybody on the project would 
thus come under military discipline and that everybody on the project, 
including their families, who went inside of the reservation, would 
agree to stay there until sometime after the war, like 6 months, and 
with the lack of schools and the fact that I had a daughter of high- 
school age I felt if those were to be the rules I wouldn't ever have 
a chance to see my daughter or her mother wouldn't have a chance to 
see her, and there were a variety of things like that. 

In other words, what I object to is any oversimplified idea that 
I was opposed to subjecting myself to such extreme security measures 
when at the same time without subjecting myself to them I could 
participate in the war effort fully as effectively as if I had gone 
there. 

Mr, Tavenner, But it was true, was it not, that such matter as 
the schools were matters that could be and would be expected to be 
adjusted, as time proceeded ? 

Dr, Condon. I think this letter helped in that process, 

Mr, Ta\t:nner, But the way the letter expresses it — and I want you 
to state where I am wrong in this — is that you were mainly concerned 
about the effect that security, that the security measures would have 
on you, 

Dr, Condon, These particular extreme security measures that we 
had under discussion, namely militarization of the personnel, and 
the keeping of everybody locked behind a wire fence until 6 months 
after the end of the war. 

Mr. Ta\^nner, Well, you emphasized in your letter the matter 
of compartmentalization of the unit, and I think that you took the 
position that that policy would put Dr, Oppenheimer in the position 
of trying to do an extremely clifKcult job with three hands tied behind 
his back, and that you could not accept the view that such internal 
compartmentalization of the larger project was proper, and so you 
took the very definite position that you could not accept that view, 
that compartmentalizaion was proper. 



TESTIMOXY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3841 

Dr. Condon. To that extreme degree : yes. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. However, you state, as I mentioned earlier in your 
letter, that you questioned the wisdom of certain security regulations 
because you were totally unaware of the extent of enemy espionage 
and sabotage activities. " Now-, this was an extremely important deci- 
sion that you made, and it was a decision likely to be followed by other 
noted scientists and which would have meant the loss to that very 
important project of the capabilities of possibly many scientists. 
That is true, isn't it? 

Dr. CoxDox. I don't believe I know what is true about it. 

Mr. Tavenxer. I say that it is true that your decision there was 
a ver}- important one not only 

Drl! CoxDox^. Other people were confronted with the same problem, 
yes; that is true. 

Mr. Tavexxer. And you were willing to undertake that decision 
without investigating the extent of enemy sabotage and espionage, 
according to this letter. 

Dr. CoxDOX. I have no facilities for investigating to that extent. 
I don't believe I know what you mean. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did you take any steps, and you say you were wholly 
uninformed, and did you take any steps to inform yourself ? 

Dr. CoxDON. Certainly not; I have no facilities whatever for 
doing that. 

]Mr. Ta\texxer. Therefore you would make this important decision 
without any investigation of any character? 

Dr. CoxDox. I don't believe I understand. What investigations are 
3'ou suggesting should have been made ? 

Mr. Tavexxer. You stated that. 

Dr. CoxDox. I stated that I didn't know about any espionage; that 
is a fact. 

i\Ir. Ta\t:nxer. You stated you were wholly unaware of the 
extent 

Dr. Cox'Dox. That is right. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Of enemy espionage and sabotage activities. 

Dr. CoxDox. That is right. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Well, before making such an important decision as 
that which you made, don't you think that you should have made 
some inquiry? 

Dr. CoxDox. No. 

Mr. Tavexx'er. You would act then entirely without the facts? 

Dr. CoxDox^. I don't see how I could have made such an inquiry. 
What kind of an inquiry are you suggesting ? 

Mr. Tavex'X'er. There are many types of inquiry that you could 
make to determine how important security was. 

Dr. CoNDOx. Wait a minute. We are not talking about how impor- 
tant security is. The question is investigating the extent of enemy 
espionage and sabotage. I had no means of doing that. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Not to get out and make a field investigation, of 
course not. Did you consult with the heads of the Manhattan Engi- 
neering Project regarding the dangers of espionage? 

Dr. CoxDox--. I talked over these matters a great deal with Dr. 
Oppenheimer ; yes. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did you talk them over with those who were 
responsible for security? 



?842 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Such as General Groves? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I don't think so. It is possible that we may have 
liad a brief conversation. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you approach anyone on this subject of enemy 
espionage and sabotage in order to determine how important it was 
to have security regulations? 

Dr. Condon. I think we are getting rather far astray here, because 
by implication you are seeming to say that I was opposed to security 
regulations, and this is not true. 

Mr. Tavenner. No; my question is aimed entirely at this: Why 
would you make such an important decision without attempting to 
inform yourself as to the extent and necessity of security against enemy 
espionage and sabotage? 

Dr. Condon. The necessity of these particular regulations, and what 
is the question, then ? 

Mr. Moulder. Does the letter say anything about a decision or was 
it an expression of opinion on his part ? 

Mr. Tavenner. He refused to accept the position because of the 
matters set forth in this letter, which, of course, are fully discussed 
by him. 

INIr. Moulder. It was a decision with respect to security ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Security was the main subject of his letter. 

Mr. Walter. It was the effect of security. 

Dr. Condon. And I don't like this oversimplification of saying se- 
curity as a blanket term, and I was not opposed to security. We had 
fences there, and guards and secrecy and every kind of piece of ap- 
paratus, and I just did not want to have my family locked in within or 
without that fence and I didn't want to wear a uniform, and that is 
all. Those were the particular matters that were being under question 
there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then the matter of compartmentalization was a 
relatively unimportant matter. 

Dr. Condon. No ; I think that that is important, too. 

Mr. Jackson. Didn't you feel that it was necessary to compartmen- 
talize the various activities having to do with the work on the atomic 
bomb? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; these are all matters of degree. You see, what I 
objected to is set forth there in explicit detail in the letter, and it refers 
to compartmentalization as affecting the exchange of information per- 
haps between the top 10 or a dozen men on the project. I am well 
aware that there was no occasion for having the men that were further 
down the line in one area be fully aware of all of the details dowui the 
other, not only it wastes their time but if there is any unfortunate 
security leaks such as did occur then those people are in a lesser posi- 
tion to spread things around. That is the theory of it. 

On the other hand, when you make it so extreme that I, who was 
second in command at Los Alamos, am criticized for talking to Arthur 
Compton, who was first in command of the laboratories liere in Chi- 
cago, and the talk was on matters of vital concern about the interrela- 
tionship of the work at Los Alamos and the work here at Chicago, so 
that the work could go ahead more efficiently and expeditiously, I 
think that that was wrong. This is the thing. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3843 

Mr. Jackson. You did not feel that you unduly minimized the 
matter of security required and necessary security at any time ? 

Dr. CoNDox. Xo ; I don't think so. 

Mr. Tavexxer. That you took all reasonable efforts to observe it 
yourself ? 

Dr. CoxDox^. I have always. That is another point that I think 
ought to be made even though in some of these policy discussions I 
have expressed views about regulations, I have always lived carefully 
with whatever regulations I was bound by, even though I might feel 
critical of some of the details. 

Mr. ]\IouLDER. You were never challenging the restriction other 
than how it might affect you personally, your own life ? 

Dr. CoxDOX'^, That is right, and all of these things were worked 
out verbally between Dr. Oppenheimer and myself and we were per- 
fectly good friends and have been for many years, and I wrote this 
letter at his request because he was disturbed about these same regu- 
lations, to help him in his negotiations with the authorities about 
some points of detail. There was no need for me to write a letter 
at all, if he hadn't wanted it for some such purpose. 

Mr. Moulder. You weren't challenging the necessity of the regu- 
lations, I understand you to say, as to how they might affect you and 
your family life, is that what I understand ? 

Dr. CoxDox-. That is right. As to whether I questioned their neces- 
sity or not, I frankly am not quite sure what views I held at the time, 
I knew they made an impossible situation in my family life, and I 
knew that they would make difficulties in the lives of other families 
as they did, and so I was expressing this at Oppenheimer's request. 

Mr. Velde. Dr. Condon, you mentioned leaks such as did occur. 
Do you have within your own personal knowledge any leaks ? 

Dr. CoxDOx. No; I was referring really to the Fuchs case, and I 
only know about that from newspaper accounts. 

Mr. Ta\^xxer. During the period of your employment at Westing- 
house Laboratories, did you in 1945 receive an invitation to attend 
certain exercises of the Academy of Sciences in the Soviet Union ? 

Dr. Cox^Dox. Yes. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Who extended the invitation to you ? 

Dr. CoxDON. My recollection was it was a Mr. Edwin Smith, of 
the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. 

Mr. Ta\t^xxer. What was the purpose given for the attendance at 
these exercises ? 

Dr. CoNDox. Well, this was one of the normal type of academic 
celebration and function related to science, much analogous to the 
Centennial of Engineering that is going on here in Chicago this week. 
It was supposed to be, I think, the two hundred and twentieth anni- 
versary of the founding of the Eussian Academy of Sciences, and the 
Russians had invited many people from various countries to come for 
a sort of scientific conference or convention. 

We never had a detailed program given in advance, so I don't know 
exactly what the program would have been. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you know the number of American scientists 
■who attended, or who were invited ? 

Dr. CoNDox. There were 15 or 16 who attended, and a ^ood many 
more were invited, but I don't know how many more. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did you receive a formal invitation ? 



3S44 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Dr. Condon. No. It was a very hastily gotten up thing, and as I 
recall it, Mr. Smith called me on the phone from New York, and just 
asked me would I be interested in going if I were invited, and those 
conversational questions ; and I said yes, if I could arrange it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make application for a passport to go to 
Russia for that purpose ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. And it was issued, was it not ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Ta\tsnner. And then taken up ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. I surrendered it in the New York office 
of the State Department, the Passport Division. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who requested that you surrender it ? 

Dr. Condon. Mrs. Shipley, Chief of the Passport Division. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was any reason assigned ? 

Dr. Condon. I have somewhere the letter that she wrote, expressing 
it, and I have forgotten just how it is expressed. In any case, the let- 
ter states that "this constitutes no reflection on your loyalty or in- 
tegrity," or something of that sort. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. As a result of that, did you go to the State Dspart- 
ment, and while there address a letter to the President of the United 
States in regard to it? 

Dr. Condon. I wrote a letter to the President of the United States, 
but not by going to the State Department. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you dictate to an employee of the State De- 
partment, over the telephone, a letter to the President? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of the investigation, the com- 
mittee has obtained a copy of that letter, which I will read into the 
record : 

My Dear Mr. President : I respectfully appeal to you to overrule INIajor 
General Groves with regard to the actions he has taken to prevent my going 
to Moscow to the celebration of the Moscow Academy of Science, after all the 
arrangements were made. Yesterday I had given up hope but having heard of 
your wise decision to provide an American plane for the group, I decided to make 
this appeal. 

General Groves is conscientiously concerned about security in the field of 
his responsibility, a project with which I have had limited connection. My 
work on the project was finished 4 months ago. 

I respectfully call attention to niy .5-year record of scientific research for 
the war effort (reference K. T. Compton). 

I respectfully reaflSrm with all solemnity upon my oath of allegiance to the 
United States of America. 

I respectfully suggest that I am willing to cooperate fully with any special 
restrictions felt to be necessary to avoid accidents while abroad. 

For several years I have keenly felt the importance of establishing cultural 
relations between American and Russian scientists. I have looked forward to 
the time when conditions would permit this. I have prepared myself by 
devoting much time and study of the Russian language. 

I believe that harm to military security would be done by my not being 
permitted to go since my scientific reputation calls attention to the field of in- 
terest involved and may stimulate espionage activities. 

As one who deeply shares your respect and affection for the late President, 
I hope for your favorable consideration to this appeal before it is too late for 
me to join the party. 

Sincerely yours, 

Edward Uhler Condon. 

Is that the letter which you wrote? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3845 

Dr. CoNDOX. It sounds like it, and I don't think that there are any 
discrepancies, from memory. It sounds correct. 

]Mr. Moulder. What is tlie date of that letter? 

Mr. Tavenner. There is no date. 

Do you recall approximately ? 

Dr. CoNDOx. It would have been in June of 1945, that this whole 
incident occurred. 

Mr. TA^'ENXER. Did you assign any reason why Major General 
Groves opposed your going to the Soviet Union at that time ? 

Dr. CoNDOX. Well, I think he opposed, or I know he opposed the 
going of a number of people who had had connections with the project. 

Mr. Tavenxer. There are other persons, too, that he registered an 
objection to going, who had obtained knowledge of scientific infor- 
mation in connection with the Los Alamos project? 

Dr. CoXDOX. Either had obtained it or given it. I gave more than 
I obtained in that, I think. 

Mr. Tavexxer. I meant no reflection on your contribution. 

Dr. CoxDox. It always sounds as though the project had some 
secrets and we were given them. The secrets originated with the 
scientists and they were given to the project. 

Mr. TA^'EXXER. The committee's records indicate that you remained 
with the Westinghouse Laboratories until November 4, 1945, at which 
time you were appointed as a Director of the National Bureau of 
Standards; is that correct? 

Dr. CoxDON. As "the" Director. There was only one. You say 
"a Director." There is only one at any given time, and I was it. 

JMr. Tavexxer. Surely. 

The National Bureau of Standards is one of the most important 
national defense research organizations in the country, is it not? 

Dr. CoxDOX. Yes; and its importance was greatly increased during 
my period as Director. 

Mr. Ta\"exxer. Will you please advise the committee what the 
functions of the National Bureau of Standards were? 

Dr. CoxDOX. You mean for the record? It is all in the Congres- 
sional Directory, and it is all in many official reports. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Yes ; but briefl}' . 

Dr. CoxDox. For this purpose, I suppose it would be well to go 
over it again. 

The National Bureau of Standards was established by act of Con- 
gress in March of 1902, and its primary function is the establishment 
of tlie basic measurements or standards of physical and chemical 
measurement and associated things with it. 

Over the years, it also acquired functions of testing commodities 
and supplies used by the Federal Government, and about the time 
of World War I it branched into the field of doing a great deal of 
military research and development. For example, at the time of 
World War I, this country had no optical-glass industry whatever, 
and the National Bureau of Standards built an optical-glass factory, 
which was our sole source of supply in World War I. 

From that period on, its services to the military organization have 
increased and developed in a wide variety of ways. So that, for 
example, when the atomic-bomb project was first called to President 
Eoosevelt's attention in 1939, he asked the then Director of tlie Na- 
tional Bureau of Standards, who was my predecessor, to organize a 



3846 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

study into the matter and make recommendations as to what research 
should be carried on. 

The National Bureau of Standards also, in the hist war, had the 
primary responsibility for the development of the proximity fuzes for 
nonrotatino; projectiles, and there was a separate project that handled 
proximity fuzes for rotating projectiles. 

The National Bureau of Standards also, for the Navy Bureau of 
Ordnance, during the w\ar carried on the development of the first and 
only guided missile to be used by our side in the last war. It was 
a guided missile known as "The Bat," which you can see on exhibit 
at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. 

Besides these major things, there were perhaps dozens or even 
hundreds of lesser things in a wide variety of physical and chemical 
matters, both during the war, which of course was prior to my time 
of service there, and in the postwar years such as now or such as 
up to now. 

Mr. Taa^enxer. Did the National Bureau of Standards, under your 
direction, conduct research work on secret weapons for the War 
Department, the Navy Department 

Dr. Condon. Yes, sir ; a very large amount of it. 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing) . And the Atomic Energy Commission? 

Dr. Condon. That is right, the Atomic Energy Commission is one 
of our children. The project started at the National Bureau of Stand- 
ards, and outgrew- the facilities there in Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you furnish the committee, please, with in- 
formation regarding the manner in which you were appointed to the 
position of Director of the National Bureau of Standards? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I know nothing about it, other than that — 
you see, the Secretary of Conmierce at that time was Mr. Henry 
Wallace, and he once asked me if I would be interested if it were 
offered, and I said "Yes ; I would." And then he said, "Well, please 
come and see me sometime, and we will talk about it more in detail." 

Mr. Tavenner. When was that? 

Dr. Condon. In either September or October, along in there, of 
1945, within a month or tw^o prior to the time of my actual appoint- 
ment; and then he made, in what I suppose is the normal way, a 
recommendation to the President, because it is a Presidential appoint- 
ment, requiring Senate confirmation. And it did come up in the 
Senate, and it was confirmed, and I was appointed. That is all I 
know about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was your appointment confirmed without the con- 
duct of a hearing? 

Dr. Condon, That is right. 

Mr. Ta^tnner. You stated that Mr. Wallace talked to you about 
this appointment. Prior to his talking to you about it, did anyone, 
with your knowledge or to your knowledge, recommend you to Mr. 
Wallace for this position? 

Dr. Condon. Not to my knowledge, but I assume that it must have 
been so, because I didn't know Mr, Wallace prior to that, 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you at any time learned w^ho it was ? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you talk to any person or persons with a view 
to having them confer with Mr, Wallace ? 

Dr. Condon, No. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3847 

Mr. Ta\t:xxer. Dr. Condon, as a matter of record, generally when 
appointments were made to the Bureau of Standards, an organization 

known as the Visiting Board 

Dr. Condon. Visiting Committee. 

Mr. Tavenner (continuing). Or the Visiting Committee, which 
consists of a group of scientists, was consulted. Could you tell the 
committee whether in your case that was done, or not done ? 

Dr. Condon. I have no first-hand knowledge of it, one way or the 
other. As a matter of record, you see, there aren't very many prece- 
dents. I was only the fourth Director in the history of the Bureau, 
and the first Director was appointed before there was a Visiting Com- 
mittee ; and that means there would only be two other cases to make 
precedent. 

Mr. Tavenner. Investigation conducted by the committee discloses 
that it was not done. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, I know a lot of information about this, but not in 
a first-hand way. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know of any reason for bypassing the 
Visiting Committee, the Visiting Board or Committee, in the matter 
of your appointment ? 

Dr. Condon. I don't believe I understand your question. 

Dr. Ta\'enner. Do you know of any reason 

Dr. Condon. I don't understand the question, the point of bypass- 
ing. The Secretary of Commerce was under no obligation to do this. 
If it is admissible to put in strictly hearsay, for which I don't vouch, 
my understanding was that Mr. Wallace had asked this Visiting Com- 
mittee for recommendations, and that something like 6 months had 
elapsed and they hadn't made any. So, when he thouo;ht he had a suit- 
able candidate of his own, he acted without consulting them. I am 
quite sure, from Avhat I have been told, that he consulted them, but 
that they did not give a recommendation. That is the way I have 
heard it, at any rate. 

Mr. Ta^-enner. The committee has obtained a list of employees of 
the Bureau of Standards cleared to work on atomic projects by the 
Atomic Energy Commission as of February 11, 1948. This gives a list 
of the names of the persons and the dates on which they were cleared, 
or what their status was. 

Now, this list shows the name of Dr. E. U. Condon as pending on 
February 11, 1948. Can you explain why you had not been cleared 
for work? 

Dr. Condon. I was cleared, all right. 

Mr. Tavenner. For work on the project? 

Dr. Condon. I was cleared. 

Mr. Tavenner. From the time of your first connection with the 
Bureau until at least as late as February 11, 1948? 

Dr. Condon. Well, the question has incorrect implications. I was 
cleared throughout that entire time. I had access to secret documents, 
and I had a very large file of them in my office, and I received and 
dealt with them almost every day. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, the list carries your name as "pending." 

Dr. Condon. I suppose that is correct. I have never seen that list. 

Mr. Tavenner. I hand the document to you to examine your own 
name as it appears, and the listing of your status as it appears opposite, 

24089—52 .3 



3848 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. COXDOX 

SO that you may be assured that I am giviiig ^ou the correct infor- 
mation. 

Dr. Condon. 1 am sure it is correct, and I understand what it is. 
Mr. Tavenner. Does tliat not show that, as of February 11, 1948, 
3^our clearance was still pending? 

Dr. Condon. No; it doesn't carry tliat implication at all. I would 
be glad to explain it, if you want. 

Sir. Tavenner. We would be very glad to have your explanation. 

Dr. Condon. You see, if you will consult what is ordinarily known 
as the McMahon bill, the bill that established the Atomic — I guess it 
is properly called the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 — the jirovisions in 
that bill, as provided for clearance, provided that everybody who had 
the status of having been cleared under Manhattan District manage- 
ment could be carried in that status on an interim basis; and, on the 
other hand, it also provided that the Atomic Energy Commission 
should get around to making other investigations of its own, and so on. 
So, that "pending" merely means that they haven't 3'et completed that 
work, but it does not mean that I was not in a cleared status, and I did, 
in fact, handle secret material and worked with the project in a way 
that, so far as I know, was not in any way limited by the technicality of 
this listing. 

Mr. Tavenner. I don't dispute tlie fact that you did work as though 
you had been cleared, but actually you had not been cleared, according 
to this record of the Atomic Energy Commission. 

Dr. Condon. Yes. It is true they were behind in their work, and 
they had many, many people that they hadn't cleared; but it is also 
true that the law provides that, on an interim basis, tlie old clearances 
Avere still valid until they did catch up with their work. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever receive a notification that you had 
been cleared by the Atomic Energy Commission ? 

Dr. Condon. At about this time, you mean ? 

Mr. Tavenner. At any time. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, yes; later, in July of 1948, there was a lai'ge, for- 
mal, public statement made on that. 

Mr. Tavenner. I have before me a statement jirepared by you for 
publication in the Congressional Record of March 24. 195:2, and I 
want to call to your attention one paragraph relating to your Loyalty 
Board hearing and review. 

Dr. Condon. You are referring now to the Department of Com- 
merce ? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir. I will read the entire paragraph. [Head- 
ing :] 

In tlu' sninmer of 1047, since there were some poor secnrity risks on the stuff 
of tlie Honse Tonnnittee on TTn-Anierican Activities, I became aware of the fact 
that I'ariiell Tliomas was goinii' to attack me. 1 went to Secretary Harriman 
and nrued him to get an FBI report on me, and suggested that he protect himself 
from ciiticism by having the newly estaldished Loyalty Board i-eview any mate- 
rial there might be. He was rather impatient of this suggestiim, saying that he 
had reviewed the files and was completely satisfied of my trustworthiness. 
Nevertheless, I persisted, and that lirst hearing was held out of deference to 
my wishes, with the Secretary of Connnerce not thinking it was at all necessary. 
After it was held, 1 used to call up every week or so to urge the Board to give 
its verdict. It is certainly not my fault that they were so slow. 

Now, you do not mean to infer from that statement that you were 
investigated by the Loyalt}? Board of the Commerce DejKirtment just 
at your own solicitation ; do you ? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3849 

Dr. Condon. Well, of course. I have no way of kiiowino- what other 
motives thev mav have had, but certainlv one of the motivations was 
the fact that I had requested that they do so. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you mean that they did not investigate your 
loyalty until you requested it? 

Dr. Condon. Oh. no. Let us not fail to distinguish two things: 
There are investigations and decisions by informal procedures, of 
which I don't know exactly what they may have been, that surely were 
made from the time I first became involved in the secret work in the 
fall of 1940. But this particular procedure under the President's 
Loyalt}' Board machinery wasn't set up until the spring of 1947, and 
that refers to an action taken under that procedure. 

Mr. Tavennek. I wanted to make certain that you were not con- 
tending that any investigation that was made there was as a result 
of your request for it, because, actually, the investigation had started 
many months before : had it not ? 

Dr. Condon. I should hope so. I had been engaged in secret work 
since 1940, and it would be scandalous if nothing had been done on all 
of the people involved prior to that. 

Mr. Tavenner. In fact, your case before the Loyalty Review Board 
was the first one which had been begun and completed within the 
Department of Commerce: wasn't it? 

Dr. Condon. I don't knoAv. It must have been one of the early 
ones. 

Mr. Tavenner. But the hearing which was held within the Depart- 
ment of Commerce was on the investigation that had been begun 
within your Department even prior to the issuance of the Executive 
order by the President ? 

Dr. Condon. Is that true ? I would have no way of knowing that. 
You see, as I say — would it be helpful if I reviewed what little I 
know about these things? 

]Mr. Tavenner. I would be very glad to have any explanation you 
want to make about it. 

Dr. Condon. In most of these matters, when one comes into asso- 
ciation with some new project involving access to classified data, he 
has a large questionnaire to fill out about his backgi'onnd and educa- 
tion and places of residence and membership in societies, and things 
of that sort. There are fingerprints, and the like. 

Well, throughout the war. I have no way of remembering exactly 
hoAv many times I did. but perhaps a half a dozen or so; and I assume 
that they didn't just go in the heaps to make a cumulation in the files 
in "Washington, and I assume someone did something with them. 

In any case. I never heard, and I never heard of any difficulties 
ii.bout my clearance, and I was always working on any number of 
thesf^ things, having filled out these things. So, I don't know what 
Avas done. 

Xow, I suppose they look up these things and check the files and 
do something about it and pass on it. So that probably there was 
work done ahead of the time of this occurrence, but I am not aware 
of the details, because it never caused any difficulty. 

Mr. Taa'enner. But all during the period of time in which you 
were being investigated you went about the normal duties of your 
office? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 



3850 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Condon, following your appointment as Di- 
rector of the National Bureau of Standards, did you set up a division 
in the Bureau known as the Atomic Physics Division? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the head of this Division ? 

Dr. Condon. I was, for a time; and later on, we had another man, 
but initially I was, for the first couple of years. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who succeeded you in that position? 

Dr. Condon. Dr. R. D. Huntoon. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you give the spelling ? 

Dr. Condon. H-u-n-t-o-o-n. 

Mr. Tavenner. This Division of the work, of course, dealt Avith 
classified and restricted information ; didn't it ? 

Dr. Condon. I think nearly every one of the 14 divisions dealt with 
classified and restricted information, and so this one did, too ; certainly. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were the persons appointed by you cleared, from 
ihe standpoint of security, for that work^ 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

I should perhaps explain on that. You see, the clearance of people 
working at the Bureau of Standards on specialized topics was handled 
by whichever agency the work was done for. If we did work for the 
Ordnance Corps of the Army, we checked with their security people 
as to the suitability of those people ; and, if we did work for the Atomic 
Energy Commission, we checked with their security people as to the 
suitaJbility of those people, and so on. 

Later, of course, the Department of Commerce itself had additional 
machinery for doing additional checking on people. 

Mr. Tavenner. While head of the Bureau of Standards, did you set 
up a division which was in the nature of a liaison operation between 
the National Bureau of Standards and representatives of certain 
foreign nations? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Will you describe that, please? 

Dr. Condon. Well, the Bureau of Standards has always cooperated 
with the policies set down by the Congress, say, in the Smith-Mundt 
bill, and so on, for encouraging intellectual cooperation with other 
countries. So, I had one member of the staff who had the title of 
Assistant to the Director, whose duty it was to look after the foreign 
visitors wdio came to the Bureau, and to check up on their clearance 
status and what they wanted, and in general in a diplomatic way 
facilitate dealings with them. 

There were perhaps an average of 500 a year, or so, of foreign visitors 
who came there, in one way or another, and both prior to the time that 
I was there, and also later. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the head of that division? 

Dr. Condon. A Mr. Vinogradoff . 

Mr. Tavenner. What were his duties ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, such as I have just described, assisting in this 
work. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. Do you know anything about the associations of Dr. 
Vinogradoff with Orekov, the first secretary of the Russian Embassy 
in Washington ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, he might have known him, because in the period 
in question, in 1946 or so, our relations were better with Russia than 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3851 

they are now. and there were some Russian visitors who came at 
that time ; and there also was an attempt, some correspondence that 
we had wjth the Russian Government in an attempt to reestablish 
exchange of scientific periodicals and build up our library, and things 
that we hadn't received during the war. And this was worked out 
with the State Department, but it didn't ever come to any useful 

result. 

Mr. Ta^-exxer. You spoke of about 500 nationals of other coun- 
tries visiting the Bureau of Standards during that period. 

Dr. Condon. That is a round number, per year. 

Mr. Ta\-enxer. Per year? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. The way it happens, Mr. Vinogradoff used to 
compile statistics by kinds of people, and by subjects of interest, and 
by what country, and had a regular mimeographed report on it, and 
so that I have a little familiarity just from that. 

]\Ir. Ta\'enner. How many do you judge were nationals of the 
Soviet Union ? 

Dr. Condon. Very few. 

Mr. TA^^:NNER. On an average? 

Dr. Condon. Very few ; perhaps at the maximum, a dozen. 

Mr. Tavenner. What materials and information were nationals of 
the Soviet Union permitted to see and obtain ? 

Dr. Condon. Only materials that were completely unclassified, and 
not having any military significance according to the official rules. 

I think, as I look back on it, I can only remember one group of 
about three astronomers who were interested in optical glass and 
telescopes, and things of that sort. They traveled broadly all over 
the country, and visited many university laboratories, and 
observatories. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Our investigation discloses that during the period 
from July 1946 to March 31, 1947, a total of 39 Russian and Polish 
nationals visited the Bureau. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. I wouldn't have 

Mr. Tavenner. Out of a total of 238. 

Dr. Condon. If we had the exact reports of Mr. Vinogradoff, it is 
all set out in great detail, but I do not remember it. 

I might say these reports were circulated to the military, to the 
Department of Commerce, and to the State Department, and it was 
all carried on in an official and open aboveboard way. 

Mr. TA^^ENNER. According to your information, were nationals 
of the United States given the same privileges and opportunities in 
Russia ? 

Dr. Condon. Oh, yes, indeed, the same privileges and the same limi- 
tations, and they didn't have access to classified material, either, if 
they were not authorized. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Did Dr. Vinogradoff have access to reports pertain- 
ing to guided missiles and proximity fuzes, and atomic energy, which 
you have described? 

Dr. Condon. It is not my recollection that he did, but if he did, it 
would be because he had been cleared by the respective agencies, the 
AEC, and so on. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was he cleared? 

Dr. Condon. I just don't recall. I doubt it, because I don't think 
that he had any need to be, but I wouldn't say for sure. 



3852 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavexner. Were you acquainted with his close association with 
members of the embassies of iron-curtain countries? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I would say he associated with members of the 
embassies of all of the countries, includinjj; those that you so describe. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you attend any of the functions at the Soviet 
Embassy with him? 

Dr. Condon. I certainly attended functions there, and I can't re- 
call whether we ever went too:ether or not. Possibly so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were any discussions entered into in your presence 
which indicated an effort to obtain information from him or from you 
re<Tarding classified projects at any of those visits? 

Dr. Condon. No; I have never been at the Soviet Embassy except 
on the' occasion of very large social parties. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Condon, in the statement prepared by you for 
publication in the Congressional Record, you refer to certain young 
scientists working in Berkeley in the laboratory of Dr. Ernest Law- 
rence. You referred to them as having staved as guests in vour home 
while in Washington for their appearance before, and I quote, "that 
House committee." Do these scientists to whom you refen-ed include 
Dr. Giovanni Rossi Lomanitz, who testified before this committee on 
April 26, 1949? 

Dr. Condon. I am not sure whether he stayed there in the sense of 
having slept there, but I know him, and he did visit me, and he may 
have even stayed there overnight. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. At the time that he was in Washington to appear be- 
fore our committee? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Joseph Weinberg, who testified on April 26, 
1949? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Taatenner. Dr. David Joseph Bohm, who testified on Mav 25, 
1949? 

Dr. Condon. You understand I don't know the dates; but the man, 
yes, and the approximate time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Frank Friedman Oppenheimer, who testified 
on June 14, 1949 ? 

Dr. Condon. I am not sure that he ever stayed at my house, but 
he is a very good friend of mine, and I saw a good deal of him at 
the time. 

Mr. Tavenner. But did he visit you on the occasion of his testi- 
fying before the committee ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, in the sense that he was in my house. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Ken Max Manfred, formerly known as Max 
Bernard Friedman ? 

Dr. Condon. That name doesn't register. I don't remember that 
name, and I don't think I do know him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Irving David Fox, who testified on September 
27, 1949 ? 

Dr. Condon. I didn't know him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do vou recall that all of these young scientists with 
the exception of Dr. Frank Friedman Oppenheimer and Dr. Joseph 
Weinberg, when called as witnesses before the committee, refused to 
answer material questions relating to their activities on the ground 
that to do so might tend to incriminate them ? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3853 

Dr. CoxDOX. AVas the question : Do I recall it? 

Mr. Tavexxp:r. Yes. 

Dr. CoxDOx. I think I only know it from their saying so, and I 
wasn't at the hearings. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did yon advise with them with regard to the an- 
swers that they would propose to make ? 

Dr. CoxDox. Xot in any responsible sense, and we were friends, 
and we talked about it, but they had counsel who dealt with them in 
a responsible way. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you recall the name of the counsel ? 

Dr. CoxDOX-^. I am not sure. One man, Mr. Clifford Durr, repre- 
sented a number of them. 

Mr. Tavexx^er. Did Mr. Clifford Durr meet in your home with his 
clients ? 

Dr. CoxDox^. Not in a business way, but Mr. Clifford Durr was a 
very good friend of mine, and is a very good friend of mine, and he 
met there, but it may have been some social relaxation before or after 
a hearing, but not in the sense of his consulting with his clients of- 
ficially. 

Mr.* Tavexxer. But he did meet with his clients in your home, prior 
to their testimony ? 

Dr. Cox^DOx^. Prior, perhaps, or after, but at that time, yes. I won't 
say all of them or what not. I just don't remember. 

Mr. Ta\t:xx'er. Do you recall that Dr. Frank Friedman Oppen- 
heimer testified before the committee that he had been a member of 
the Communist Party? 

Dr. CoxDOX. I don't recall how he testified before the committee, 
but I remember it was said in the newspapers about that time. 

Mr. Ta^t:xxer. Do you recall that Dr. Joseph "Weinberg did testify, 
and has now been indicted for perjury in connection with his testi- 
mony before this committee ? 

Dr. CoxDOX'. These things that I have on hearsay, yes; I suppose 
they are correct. 

Mr. Tavex'^xer. Now, in the course of your statement which you 
prepared for publication in the Congressional Record, there is also to 
be found this statement : 

Of course, I flo not know of all their activities and associations, especially 
prior to the fall of 1943, when I went out there. But I do know that they 
worked diligently and hard to make their part of the atomic bomb project a 
success, and I do not believe that any of them engaged in espionage activities. 

That was speaking of these young scientists. 

When you state that you do not believe that any of these yoimg 
scientists engaged in espionage activities, on what do you base that 
belief? 

Dr. CoxDox. Just the normal confidence that one has in a person 
with whom he is fairly closely associated. 

Mr. Ta\t:x^x'er. Did you examine the testimony before the commit- 
tee with regard to those individuals before making that statement? 

Dr. Coxpox^. I don't think I did; no. Was it published? I don't 
know that it is available, is it? 

Mr. Tavexxer. Yes. 

Then do vou consider that you would make statements for publica- 
tion in the Congressional Record regarding your belief as to the activ- 



3854 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

ity of individuals in the face of testimony and without having made 
any investigation or inquirj' on your own part? 

Dr. Condon. The statement refers to what I believe on the basis of 
my contacts with them, and nothing more. 

Mr. Tavenner. The statement is that you "believe" — "I do not 
believe that any of them engaged in espionage activities." 

Dr. Condon. That is right, I do not believe it. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. But you made that statement 

Dr. Condon. I do not believe it was brought out in any of the testi- 
mony that you have cited, was it, or they were not accused of it, were 
they ; or were they ? I don't know. I haven't seen the testimony. 

Mr. Taat^nner. Yes ; there was considerable testimony on it. 

Dr. Condon. There was considerable testimony, but what did it say ? 

Mr. Tavenner. There was considerable testimony on the activities 
of Dr. Weinberg. 

Dr. Condon. To the effect that he had engaged in espionage, that 
is alleged? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, indeed, by three or four witnesses, which he 
denied, and for which he has been indicted. 

Dr. Condon. I don't believe it. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you would make the public statement with 
regard to those matters w^ithout making any inquiry or investigation 
of your own from sources that you might be enlightened by ? 

Dr. Condon. It is a correct statement about the present state of my 
personal belief, and it doesn't go any further, and maybe it is true. 

Mr. Jackson. Are you still of the opinion. Dr. Condon, that Dr. 
Weinberg was not guilty of espionage? 

Dr. Condon. I have no reason to believe it. I doubt it. 

Mr. Jackson. You have no reason to believe it ? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Velde. When did you first meet Dr. Weinberg? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I went out to Berkeley on the project in Septem- 
ber of 1043, and it would have been about that time, but I don't know 
accurately. And he was not on the project of the atomic bomb. He 
was a teaching member of the faculty of the University of California 
Physics Department, but not working on the atomic-bomb project, 
at least at the time I knew him. 

Mr. Velde. What were the circumstances under which you became 
acquainted with him? 

Dr. Condon. Just ordinary social contact, people around that pro- 
fessional laboratory there. 

Mr. Velde. When you say "social contacts," did you meet at various 
parties where Dr. Weinberg was present? 

Dr. Condon. I think that I may have, two or three times. 

Mr. Velde. Do you recall, on any of those parties, where they were? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Velde. You mean you actually attended parties, and you don't 
have any idea now where they were ? 

Dr. Condon. That is quite correct. I am not even sure that I at- 
tended parties. For example, we had lunch. Those of us during 
the lunch hour would lunch together at local restaurants, and things 
of that sort, and I really don't recall any very extended acquaintance 
with him. 

Mr. Velde. Who else were in those groups ? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3855 

Dr. Condon. Well, other physicists who worked there, and I can't 
remember all of them, members of the faculty, the physics department 
of the University of California, young members of the staff of Ernest 
Lawrence's laboratory. 

Mr. Velde. Can you name any at all that were present in the group ? 

Dr. Condon, I can't be absolutely sure, because, you understand, 
there was a sort of a fluid grouping there. There must have been on 
the order of 500 people working in Ernest Lawrence's laboratory, and 
we would go to lunch or there was a good deal of night work, and 
we would have a late cup of coffee, and that sort of thing, and I don't 
remember who they were. There were various ones of this group, 
plus other people on the staff there. 

Mr. Velde. Do you remember where you had your cup of coffee, 
or where you had your meeting's I 

Dr. Condon. The University of California has a typical college 
hashhouse neighborhood, with half a dozen places, and I don't re- 
member, no. 

Mr. Velde. You did not go to any particular place regularly? 

Dr. Condon. No, very casually; and as a matter of fact, I believe 
your line of questioning started about Mr. Weinberg in particular, 
and I didn't know him as well as I knew some of the others, but 
the same remarks would apply to the others, too. It was a very 
fluid and hard-working thing. We worked all hours of the day and 
night, and there were night shifts, and the work was carried on 
on a 24-hour-shift basis, and I worked a good deal, and I would 
come back at night and there was this sort of canteen for coffee 
and sandwiches right at the laboratory, and social contacts of that 
sort, highly informal, and just in connection with the work. 

Mr. Velde. This was in 1943 and 1944? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Dr. Velde. How long were you at the University of California 
Radiation Laboratory, Doctor? 

Dr. Condon. In this connection, from September of 1943 to January 
or February of 1945. 

I made certain business trips back to Pittsburgh, but I was essen- 
tially there all of the time. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Dr. Clarence Hiskey? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I have never met him. 

Mr. Tavenner. He was one of the young scientists. 

Dr. Condon. But not at Berkeley. He was in New York or Chicago ; 
I have forgotten which. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Martin Kamen? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; I know him. 

Mr. Tavenner. You are acquainted with him? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Ta^isnner. When you expressed your opinion, in the article 
you prepared for publication in the Congressional Record, did you 
have in mind Dr. Martin Kamen as being one that you believed was 
not engaged in espionage activities? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Walter. I think we will take a recess at this point for 10 
minutes. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Mr. Moulder (presiding) . This subcommittee will be in order. 

24089 — 52- 4 



3856 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. COXDOX 

Pursuant to the rules of the House of Kepresentatives and as duly 
appointed and directed by the chairman, Hon. John S. Wood, this 
subcommittee, composed of Congressman Jackson. Congressman Vehle, 
and m3'self , all being present, will now come to order for continuation 
of the proceedings herein. 

Dr. Condon. Mr. Chairman, if I might say, I think for the record 
it w^ould be interesting to add to the story concerning the letter of 
resignation the fact that that letter itself was a secret document as 
originally written, although it wasn't so stamped because it was han- 
dled entirely within the Los Angeles area, and that the way in which 
this committee came into possession of that letter was by an inves- 
tigator going to Mr. Oppenheimer and asking him for it, at the sug- 
gestion of General Groves, so Mr. Oppenheimer told me, and he called 
up myself on the telephone at that time, in March of 1948, to ask 
permission to give it to this committee, which I freely granted in 
accordance wdth the policy that I have always followed of giving this 
committee any material it might want from me. 

Mr. Moulder. Are you making reference to the first letter ? 

Dr. Condon. I am referring to the letter of resignation from Los 
Alamos. You may have had more than one source of it but that was 
one of the sources. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Mr. Chairman, I am not fully acquainted with the 
facts regarding General Groves' participation in any plan that the 
committee get this letter, but I think in light of the fact that the 
question has been raised that I should read into the record a letter 
of Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, bearing date of March 25, 1948, addressed 
to the senior investigator of the committee, the Committee on Un- 
American Activities of the House of Representatives. It reads as 
follows : 

Dear Mr. Russell : You asked when you were here last week to see a copy 
of the letter which Dr. Condon wrote at the time that he left the Los Alamos 
laboratory in the spring of 1943, and the existence of which yon learned from 
General Groves. With your consent I have communicated witl) Dr. Condon 
and have sent him a copy of the letter which he no longer had. He has no 
objection whatever to my making the letter available, and I am enclosing it. 
To the best of my knowledge there are no restricted data within the meaning 
of the Atomic Energy Act touched upon in this letter. 

I neerl to add one comment. At the time Dr. Condon left Los Alamo? I wel- 
comed an expression of his views, not primarily for the sake of the record but 
in the belief that this might prove useful in our efforts to make the project a 
success. 

Very sincerely yours, 

Robert Oppenheimer. 

And that letter constitutes all of the information we have on that 
subject. 

Dr. Condon. It covers. I think, the points I was making very nicely. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Condon, I believe you stated that you didn't 
trouble to familiarize yourself with the testimony of these young 
scientists before the Committee on Un-American Activities. 

Dr. Condon. I don't think I did, other than just their own verbal 
accounts to me of what liad happened after the event and things of 
that sort. 

]Mr. Tavenner. Well, did they advise you of the testimony of Robert 
R. Davis before the Connnittee on Un-American Activities? 

Dr. Condon. I don't remember that one in particular. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3857 

Mr. Tavekner. Well, according to the testimony of Robert R. Davis, 
who was em])loye(l at tlie radiation laboratory at Berkeley, Calif., and 
also the testimony of his Avife. Charlotte Davis, Dr. Giovanni Rossi 
Lomanitz recruited both of tliem into a Communist Party cell within 
the radiation laboratory at Berkelev. Did yon know of the existence 
of a cell of the Communist Party among the young scientists withm 
the radiation laboratory ? 

Dr. Condon. No : I did not. 

Mr. Taa'enner. Did you make any inquiry from any of these young 
scientists as to their membership in this cell? 

Dr. Condon. No : because I didn't know there was any cell to inquire 
about. 

Mr. Tavenxkr. And you made no inquiry although you would place 
this positive statement in the Congressional Record to the effect that 
you believed they were all right ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; and the basis for that is the fact that throughout, 
except in the case of Lomanitz so far as I recall and in the case of 
Weinberg who had nothing to do with the project — but with the 
others they worked on the project, throughout the entire war so that 
insofar as I may have thought they were all right, it was largely an 
expression of confidence in General Groves' security program. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you permitted your personal con- 
fidence in these individuals to supersede the duty of inquii*y into these 
matters, didn't you 1 

Dr. Condon. I had no duty of inquiry, because I had no connection 
with these men as affecting any improper behavior. 

Mr. Tavenner. When you attempt to give them a clean bill of 
health in the Congressional Record, don't you think that there is a 
duty of inquiry ? 

Dr. Condon, I didn't give them a clean bill of health; I said so 
far as my contact with them there was no reason to doubt that they 
were perfectly all rioht. 

Mr. Tavenner. You said you believed, and you were talking about 
what you believed, and you admit you made no inquiry ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Has that characterized your dealings with other 
employees in highly sensitive positions in Government, or I will con- 
fine it to tlie Bureau of Standards ? 

Dr. Condon. Has what characterized it? You mean the business 
of not making inquiiy ? 

Ml-. Tamsnner. This business of relying upon your personal feelings 
for the individual, or your personal views of their integrity rather 
than making inquiry. 

Dr. Condon. No, this is not characterizing it, because in every case 
where people deal with classified information, one is definitely advised 
whether they are cleared or not cleared, and I always ascertained that 
fact about each individual and the area of clearance, what subject mat- 
ter he was cleared for. and dealt with them accordingly. 

Mr. Taa-enner. Do you think that the existence of a Communist 
Party cell in a highly sensitive radiation laboratory composed of 
young scientists engaged in the perfection of the atomic bomb should 
have been permitted ? 

Dr. Condon. No, I don't think so. and I don't think it was permitted. 

Mr. Jackson. May I ask a question at that point? Is my under- 



3858 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

standing correct that these young scientists were living in your home 
at the time they appeared before the committee ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, you understand that they were visitors to the 
town and I had some extra beds in my home, and sometimes they would 
come and I wouldn't say on every occasion, but often I welcomed the 
chance to help them out, and they Avere people who were nervous and 
distressed, and they were people that I had known favorably, and so 
I tried to be friendly with them. 

Mr. Jackson. What was your personal reaction, Doctor, upon their 
return from the committee sessions, in which they had refused in some 
instances at least to tell the committee whether or not they were mem- 
bers of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. Condon. That is their constitutional right, I believe. 

Mr. Jackson. And in no way affected your feelings either one way 
or the other ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Jackson. Would you today feel much the same with respect to 
a young scientist who appeared before this committee after having 
been identified as a member of the Communist Party — would your 
feelings with respect to him be based entirely upon his ability or would 
the fact that he was a member of the Communist Party or had been so 
identified have any bearing on your reaction ? 

Dr. Condon. No, I don't know what you mean by "my reaction." 

Mr. Jackson. How would you feel about it, would you feel the same 
today as you did in the case of these young scientists ? 

Dr. Condon. I would have additional information, namely the fact 
he had taken that position. But my position on that is that I don't care 
what he is ; if he is cleared I deal with him, and if he is not cleared 
I don't. 

Mr. Jackson. I can understand that up to the point when he comes 
before a committee and refuses to state whether or not he is a member 
of an organization or movement which has been declared to be sub- 
versive and wdiich has also been found in law to seek the overthrow of 
the Government by force and violence. I can understand your trust 
and your faith up to that point, and what I want to know 

Dr. Condon. I don't have trust and faith ; I merely say that my per- 
sonal dealings with them gave me no reason to believe there was any- 
thing wrong with them. 

Mr. Jackson. You must have had a certain degree of trust and 
faith to have them in your house. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Jackson. And so there is a human trust and faith involved but 
what would your reaction be today. Dr. Condon, under circumstances, 
if the same situation were to develop with respect to a brilliant young 
scientist ? 

Dr. Condon. I really don't know ; I would have to wait and see how 
it developed. 

Mr. Jackson. You mean there is a question in your mind as to 
whether or not that would affect you ? 

Dr. Condon. I think the person has a right to exercise his consti- 
tutional rights and otherwise it isn't a right. 

Mr. Jackson. Dr. Condon, the American Communist, to my mind, 
is a blood brother of the North Korean and the North Chinese, and 
they read the same textbooks. I am surprised, actually. Doctor, at 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3859 

your inability or your unwillingness to state at this time whether 
or not under the same set of circumstances which prevailed with these 
young scientists, if you found a young scientist in your organization 
who refused to answer today whether he was a member of the Com- 
munist Party, I am somewhat surprised that you are unable to state 
at this time if your feelings would be the same as they were then 
or not. 
Dr. CoNDox. That is not a question, you are surprised. 
Mr. Jacksox. No; I am surprised. I don't surprise very easily, 
I may add. 

Mr. Tavexxer. "Were you surprised when these young scientists told 
you that they had refused to answer the question of whether or not 
they had been members of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. CoxDOx. I don't believe I understand what you mean by the 
implications of was I surprised. I think that they hacl been advised 
by counsel to take that position, and that is their right and so they 
did. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Well, were you interested enough to inquire from 
them whether or not they were members of the Communist Party? 
Dr. CoxDON. No ; I did not deem that it was proper for me to do so, 
and I was their host. 

Mr. Ta\t.xner. Up to that time had you had any information or 
any knowledge that any of those young "^scientists had been members 
of the Communist Party ? 

Dr. CoxDox. No, I clidn't, and I don't have yet. You see, they 
exercised their constitutional right and that is that. 

Mr. Tavexxer. You stated that Dr. Frank Friedman Oppenheimer 
was one of those who visited in your home. That is right, is it not ? 
Dr. CoNDOx. Yes. 

Mr. Tavexxer. How long had you known Dr. Frank Oppenheimer? 
Dr. CoxDox. Let me see. I might have met him earlier than going 
to Berkeley on the project, but certainly I didn't know him well, and 
so let us say from September 1943 on, at that time. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Well, Dr. Frank Oppenheimer admitted to the com- 
mittee that he had been a member of the Communist Party. 
Dr. CoxDOx. That is right. 

Mr. Ta^t:xxer. Did you know of his membership ? 
Dr. Cox^DOx^. In the party '. At that time he told me later. 
Mr. Tavexxer. When did he tell you ? 

Dr. CoxDox. It is more or less about the time of those hearings, 
but after he admitted it, and as a matter of fact I think he told me 
just a few hours before the hearing that he was intending to tell it, 
so that he would be honest with me before coming to the meeting of 
this cornmittee, but I am not sure. It may have been after, but my 
impression was it was before. 

Mr. TA^'EXXER. Did he consult with you about the advisability of 
his telling the truth about it? 
Dr. CoxDox^. No. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Do you recall having met Dr. Frank Friedman Op- 
penheimer at Idaho Springs in June of 1949 ? 
Dr. CoxDOx. Oh, yes. 

Mr. Tavex'xer. What was the occasion of the meeting there ? 
Dr. CoxDox'. There was a scientific conference there on cosmic rays 
held at the Idaho Springs High School Auditorium that was ar- 



3860 TESTIMONY OF DH. KDWAKD U. CONDON 

ranged by some group, I think it was tlie Office of Naval Research, and 
I have forgotten, but it was a gathering of appi'oxiniately 100 of the 
outstanding people in the held of cosmic ray research for a discussion 
of research. 

Mr. Tavenner. At that time you knew of his former membership 
in the Communist Party ^ 

Dr. Condon. Oh, yes ; I think that was right. Frankly I am not 
quite sure when he appeared before this conmiittee; if it was prioi- to 
that then I knew it. I must have known it at that time. 

Mr. Tavi<:nner. Yes. he testified before the committee on June 14, 
1949, the same month in which you say you met him at Idaho Springs ; 
{iiid, now, was that after the testimony or before? 

Dr. Condon. I think it must have been after; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And in fact it was a matter of a few days, or prob- 
ably not more than a week '. 

Dr. Condon. It was very close there, yes. 

Mr. TaM'^nner. Did you learn that in his testimony before the com- 
mittee he stated that his Communist Party name was Frank Folsom f 

Dr. Condon. I don't recall that, no. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with another young scientist 
by the name of Dr. Bernard Peters i' 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was Dr. Bernard Peters connected with the devel- 
opment of the atomic bomb? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, he was in the Berkeley laboratory. 

Mr. Tavenner. Where i' 

Dr. Condon. At Berkeley. 

Mr. Tavenner, Did you see Dr. Bernard Peters at Idaho Springs at 
that time, June of 1949 ? 
• Dr. Condon. Yes, he was there. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were Dr. Frank Friednum Oppenheimer and Dr. 
Bernard Peters acquainted with each other, to your knowledge ? 

Dr. Condon. We were all together at Berkeley during the war. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you were together at Idaho Springs in June of 
1 949 ; were you not ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with the fact that a news article 
appeared in a Rochester, N. Y., newspaper, in which it was alleged 
that Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer testified before the Committee on 
Un-American Activities in executive session to the etfect that Dr. 
Bernard Peters was at one time a member of the Connnunist Party in 
Germany ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, Dr. Peters showed me the clippings of the articles. 
They appeared in the Rochester newspaper. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you obtain any information relating to Dr. 
Robert Oppenheimer 's testimony in connection with his appearance 
in executive session before the Committee on Un-American Activities 
f I'om any source other than the news article in Rochester, N. Y., in the 
Rochester paper? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was an arrangement made between Dr. Bernard 
Peters and Dr. Frank F. Oppenheimer to go to Berkeley, Calif., v^^here 
Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer was residing, for the purpose of giving 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3861 

Dr. J. Robert Oppeiilieiiner a thorouirli questioniiio- about his alleged 
testimony before this committee relating to Dr. Bernard Peters? 

Dr. CoNDOX. I ajn not sure, and an arrangement Avould imply defi- 
nitely planning it. and I think those two fellows were going — you 
understand Frank Oppenheimer is the younger brother of Robert Op- 
penheimer, and I think that at the end of this meeting in Colorado 
they were both going ,on to California anyway, and in the normal 
course of events would discuss this with Robert. 

Mr. Tav-exxer. Well, you say normal course of events. Actually, 
didn't they decide in advance before the closing of the meeting that 
they would go to Berkeley for the purpose of giving a thorough ques- 
tioning 

Dr. CoxDOX. That may be the case. 

Mr. TA^TXNER. To Dr. Robert Oppenheimer? 

Dr. CoxDON^. I was not personally and directly involved in this, 
and I discussed it a great deal with them. Peters was very mihappy 
about it. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Well, you took part in the discussion, which re- 
sulted in their decision to do that ; did you not ? 

Dr. CoxDOX. I took part — since I don't remember the decision, I 
don't remember — I am not trying to evade, I discussed very freely and 
at great length with this poor man Peters, who was terribly upset and 
disturbed at these unfortunate newspaper articles, all of the circum- 
stances about it. and what might he do. and things of that sort. This 
may have been among them. I suppose it was, and I don't mean to 
evade it and I just really don't remember that specific detail. 

Mr, Tavexxer. Well, did they go to Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer, to 
your knowledge? 

Dr. CoxDOX. I don't know. I suspect so. but I don't know. 

Mr. Ta\-exxer. Did you take J. Robert Oppenheimer to task for 
his alleged testimony before the Committee on Un-American Activi- 
ties? 

Dr. CoxDOX. Yes. I wrote him a very critical letter. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did you charge Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer with 
endeavoring to involve other people in an effort to obtain immunity 
for himself? 

Dr. CoxDOX. I am not sure. I don't have a copy of that letter. 

Mr. Ta\t.xxer. Well, that is a very serious charge to make against 
a person, and you say that you wrote him a very sharp letter. 

Dr. CoxDox. That is right. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Can't you recall that you did make such a charge? 

Dr. CoxDox. I wouldn't want to say that I made it unequivocally. 
I mav have said something substantiallv that, and I was verv angrv 
at that time, and I am still quite angry about it. 

Mr. Ta\'exxer. Well, what had occurred to your knowledge, if any- 
thing, which in your judgment would constitute a reason why Dr. J. 
Robeit Oppenheimer should seek immunity by telling something that 
was untrue about someone else, or something that was true about some 
other person? 

Dr. CoxDOX. AVhat do you mean? Such immunity could be im- 
munity just from harassment and annoyance without any foundation 
such a.s in my own case, and there is no basis for any of the annoyance 
that I have been put through. 



3862 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavenner. I am askin<T you about Dr. J. Robert Oppenlieimer, 
and was there anything that Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer had done to 
your knowledge wliich would constitute a reason why he should seek 
immunity ? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Moulder. May I interpose one question in connection with Mr. 
Jackson's interrogation a few moments ago, ,1 am sure that he and 
I are in complete agreement that when some persons who refuse to 
answer a question as to whether or not they are or ever have been 
Communists, there is a strong inference that they have been, and 
are. 

Now, that inference, if you understood that, would that be your 
reaction ? 

Dr. Condon. I don't want to discuss individuals other than myself, 
because in fact I don't know other than the hearsay, but the kind of 
distinction I have in mind which I think is applicable in some in- 
stances is that we all know that there are the really dedicated Com- 
munists who are really very dangerous, and with them I have no 
sympathy whatever, and we also know that there are young men who 
in their college days made short periods of a month or a few months 
casual membership and got over the thing quickly and in many cases 
as long as 10 or 15 years ago, and I think it is very unfair to bring 
their name up in a derogatory way just because they did belong. 

Now, I 

Mr. Moulder. Don't you believe, though, Dr. Condon, that they 
would leave a better impression if they would answer the questions 
straightforwardly and then make the explanation that you have made 
there, in their defense, rather than to shield themselves behind the 
provisions of the Constitution, leaving the strong inference that Mr. 
Jackson has mentioned ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, it could well be that they are ill-advised in taking 
that protection, but if they do I didn't advise any of them on that. 

Mr. Tavenner. Doctor, you emphasize the situation where young 
boys at college might for a very short period of time have joined the 
party. None of these scientists were young college boys. These 
scientists were engaged in one of the most serious pieces of business 
in which this country has ever been engaged. And as a part of the 
testimony regarding their activities, meetings were held with Steve 
Nelson, the head of the Communist Party of Alameda County, Calif.^ 
and I think I need iiot tell you anything about the record of Steve 
Nelson. 

Dr. Condon. I only know it from the newspapers. 

Well, I had always had a good deal of confidence in General 
(iroves' security program, and these men were and continued to be 
cleared and operating on the project during the entire time of the 
war. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you know as a matter of fact that it was very 
carefully planned to induct several of these people into the United 
States Ami}', to get them off to Alaska and other places, where they 
could do no harm, and where they could be observed, and do you not 
knoAv that some of them were given inconsequential positions which 
would minimize the danger of leakage of information which they had 
already obtained, as part of the security to protect the country against 
that cell that had been organized within the laboratory at Berkeley? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3863 

Dr. Condon. I am afraid I can't carry all of that question in my 
head and it contained many assertions, as assertions, that we haven't 
agreed to in the testimony. 

Mr. Tavenner. You might not agree as to the truthfulness of that 
testimony, but that is the testimony. 

Dr. Condon. But what is the question ? 

Mr. Ta^-enner. I didn't ask you a question. I am asking you if you 
are arguing that these were just schoolboys. 

Dr. Condon. No, I wasn't arguing that these were schoolboys. I 
said nothing of the kind, and I gave the members of the committee 
a hypothetical example of an instance in which I wouldn't hold it 
against a man if he had that in his record, and hoped that he could 
live it down by just saying nothing about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. I don't intend to make any wrong inferences from 
your testimony, but when you talk about schoolboys being involved, 
it is so far from the situation here that the problem you are posing 
would have no bearing on it. 

Now did you also take Dr. Oppenheimer further to task by telling 
him that it was his duty to write at once to the president of the Uni- 
versity of Rochester and advise him that Dr. Peters was all right? 

Dr. Condon. That may have been included in that letter. I don't 
remember the exact details. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you also demand that if Dr. Peters lost his 
position at the University of Rochester as a result of Dr. Oppen- 
heimer's alleged testimony before this committee, it was his moral 
obligation to offer Dr. Peters a position on the staff of the Institute 
for Advanced Study ? 

Dr. Condon. I may have said that ; this was a personal 

Mr. Tavenner. Where is that institute located ? 

Dr. Condon. At Princeton, N. J., and that was a personal letter 
between friends, and we are still friends. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make any independent investigations or 
inquiry on your own part regarding Dr. Bernard Peters before taking 
Dr. Oppenheimer to task for his alleged testimony before this com- 
mittee ? 

Dr. Condon. No. As I say, Dr. Peters was one of those that was 
cleared for secret work throughout the entire war by General Groves' 
security officers, and that was enough for me. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, you relied upon your own views 
as to personal integrity of the individual and you thought that that 
was superior to the duty of inquiry before taking action? 

Dr. Condon. I relied on my own views based on personal acquaint- 
ance, and the fact of his clearance for secret work by those who were 
in responsible charge of the matter of making clearance investiga- 
tions. 

As far as I know. Dr. Peters' clearance status wasn't terminated 
until the end of the project. For all I know he may still have such 
clearance status. 

Mr. Tavenner. In other words, if a person had been cleared, you 
would not listen to any evidence which would relate to the man's 
loyalty ? 

Dr. Condon. I might listen to it but I might not believe it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, you wouldn't even listen to it? 

24089—52 5 



3864 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U, CONDON 

Dr. Condon. I think that I have listened to everything I have heard, 
on this subject. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you under the apprehension at the time that 
J. Robert Oppenheimer had or might give this committee informa- 
tion reLating to any scientists other than Dr. Bernard Peters? 

Dr. Condon. No. I don't recall whether I was. He, of co^jrse, 
knows, like myself, many, many scientists and he might have been 
called upon. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you express to any person the possibility that 
he might involve other people ? 

Dr. Condon. I may have, and if so in that letter ; I am not sure ; 
it is a possibility. 

Mr. Tavenner. And it is a matter that you had very definitely in 
mind ; isn't it ? • 

Dr. Condon. What is that ? 

Mr. Tavenner. It is a matter which you had very definitely in 
mind ? 

Dr. Condon. My difficulty is now I have forgotten what the "it" 
refers to. What is the matter that I had in mind ? 

Mr. Tavenner. The possibility that Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer 
might involve other scientists beside Dr. Bernard Peters. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, yes; if he had given the kind of testimony that 
he is alleged to have given in the Rochester papers about Bernard 
Peters, why I suppose he might do the same thing about other people. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did that have a part in your taking Dr. Oppen- 
heimer to task for his testimony ? 

Dr. Condon. I expect so, yes ; I don't think that people should be 
made to suffer unfairly. 

Mr. Tavenner. How do you know he suffered unfairly ? 

Dr. Condon. Dr. Peters? 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes. 

Dr. Condon. I don't know it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Just because you have personal confidence in his 
integrity ? 

Dr. Condon. I didn't say he suffered unfairly ; I said I don't think 
people should be made to suffer unfairly. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, I asked you if Dr. Peters suffered unfairly. 

Dr. Condon. I don't know ; it is my impression. 

Mr. Tavenner. You don't know ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; I would say I think he suffered unfairly. 

Mr. Ta^tenner. Why, what do you base that on? You made no 
investigations. 

Dr. Condon. It is my opinion. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you think he should be permitted to continue to 
occupy a position of trust in the education of children if he were an 
avowed Communist? 

Dr. Condon. He was not an avowed Communist. 

Mr. Tavenner. I am asking you that question. He didn't admit it, 
it is true. 

Dr. Condon. I don't think anybody accused him of it. 

Mr. Velde. Did you consult with Dr. Bernard Peters before you 
wrote the letter ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; he is a very close friend of mine. Those circum- 
stances, Idaho Springs is a very small town, there is a convention of 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3865 

100 people and we all saw each other, and we had lunch together, and 
we went for walks when the meetings weren't going on, and this par- 
ticular unfortunate incident that had happened to Dr. Peters which 
might have cost him a position, but didn't, because of the fairness of 
the University of Rochester faculty, and the administration, was a 
ma ter of deep concern to him and to myself as a person who had had 
a friendly feeling toward him. It was discussed at considerable 
length. 

Mr. Velde. Did he help you write the letter? 

Dr. CoNDOx. Xobody helps me write letters. I write them myself. 

Mr. Velde. How did you happen to write that one ? 

Dr. Condon. Just I felt strongly on the issues. Oppenheimer is a 
friend of mine, and I wrote it. 

Mr. Velde. Did you dictate it? 

Dr. Condon. No; I think if I am not mistaken I had my portable 
typewriter with me and I wrote it myself or maybe I used a type- 
writer and tyi>ed it myself. 

Mr. Velde. "Was anyone present at the time ^^ou wrote the letter ? 

Dr. Condon. It is hard to say, I really don't remember. It easily 
could have been Peters or his brother, Frank, but I don't know that 
they were there. I am quite sure that aside from whether they were 
present when I wrote it, I am quite sure that I showed it to Peters 
before I mailed it, and so in effect it is the same sort of thing. 

Mr. Velde. Did you retain the copies of the letter that you wrote? 

Dr. Condon. I don't think so, I might have, I am not sure. 

Mr. Velde. Do you still have the typewriter? 

Dr. Condon. Yes, it is not an Underwood, it is a Corona. 

Mr. Velde. You do not know whether you made any copy of the 
letter ? 

Dr. Condon. Not from memory, I may have it at home in my files, 
but I just don't know. 

Mr. Velde. Can you remember any words or phrases that you used 
in the letter? 

Dr. Condon. No. 
. Mr. Velde. With reference to Dr. Peters ? 

Dr. Condon. No; the little phrases that have been read here sound 
plausible, but I can't remember them, it was written in a mood of 
considerable irritation and anger, and I think probably it was a little 
stronger than I would write it if I had it to do over again, but as I say, 
Oppenheimer and I were old friends and we are still friends and he 
takes that sort of thing from me. 

]Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Condon, while Director of the National Bureau 
of Standards did you become acquainted with one Voyan Athanasov, 
who was attached to the Bulgarian Legation in Washington? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. sir. 

Mr. TA^'ENNER. How did you become acquainted with him? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I am afraid I don't remember, I must have met 
him socially, and he invited me to dinner at his house one evening, 
and I may have met him one or two more times like that. That was 
all there was to it. 

Mr. Tavenner. How did it occur that a person attached to the Bul- 

farian Legation should have invited the head of the Bureau of 
tandards to social functions? How did that happen to occur? Do 
you know ? 



3866 TESTIMONY OP^ DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Dr. Condon. I haven't any idea, I was invited to many, many social 
functions, and this was amono; them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Had you known him or met him before you were in- 
vited the first time? 

Dr. Condon, Actually I don't remember the details, but I probably 
had met him at some other social function, and got into a conver- 
sation. 

Mr. Tavenner. "V'STien you were Director of the Bureau did you be- 
come acquainted with one Bou Bravaka Hojsman? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Who was the wife of an attache of the Czecho- 
slovakian Embassy? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Was she a guest worker at the Bureau of Stand- 
ards ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

]\Ir. Tavenner. What were the circumstances under which she be- 
came a guest worker, and will you explain that to us ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, she was a lady gi-aduate in engineering from 
the University of Prague in Czechoslovakia, who came over here 
during the war, and worked on secret radar work in the Sperry 
Gyroscope Co., and she was cleared for it by the military authorities, 
a woman of considerable attainments in the engineering field con- 
sidering that slie was quite young, and she was the wife at that time, 
she was over here alone and her husband was in the Czechoslovakian 
Army, or the Czech Army in exile, or the Czech forces that were in 
Britain. So they were separated by the circumstance of the war. 
Then later, after the war, her husband was made, I think, assistant 
military attache of the Czech Embassy, and she was residing in 
Washington, and having a technical education she was interested 
in continuing scientific work and so on the same basis that was 
mentioned earlier whereby some good, many such people were given 
such status, she was given it. too. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, during the course of the committee's investi- 
gations, we find that a great deal of controversy developed over a 
report published by the National Defense Research Committee per- 
taining to the deterioration of equipment in tropical countries. The 
committee was informed that the publication was at one time a re- 
stricted publication, and that Mrs. Hojsman secured a copy of it. Do 
you know whether it was restricted or unrestricted at the time she 
obtained it or do you know any facts in regard to it? 

Dr. Condon. This is the first time I have ever heard of that report, 
or anything about it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Would she have needed such a report in connection 
with her work in the field of illuminating engineering? 

Dr. Condon. That was not her field. 

Mr. Tavenner. AA-liat was her field ? 

Dr. CoxDON. She worked in various things connected with micro- 
wave radar during the war, and she was interested in applications 
of masteprong molecular structure after the war, but not illumination. 
I don't really know what this report is, and so I can't tell. It sounds 
like it is a little outside of her field. But then it is also not clear that 
it was not completely declassified at the time she got it. In which 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3867 

case that means that an official determination had been made by the 
military that it is perfectly all riaht. 

Mr. Tavenxer. But you cannot tell us of any requirement that 
she would have had for a document of that character? 

Dr. CoxDox. Well, if it was classified, she would have had no 
access to it and if it was declassified then everybody has frequent 
access to it, and she might have read it in the library, or looked at it. 

Mr. Tavexner. Therefore, whether it was in her field or not, if it 
Avas classified she had no right to it under any circumstances? 

Dr. Cox^Dox^. That is right ; and if it was declassified it means that 
it is freely available and anybody can have it. 

yiv. Taatenxer, Of course, without investigation you would not 
know whether it was declassified at that time or not ? 

Dr. CoNDOX"^. Frankly, I don't even recall this report at all. even 
tlie existence of it. let alone any details of it. 

Mr. Tavenxer. Well, it was also determined during the course 
of the committee's investigations, Doctor, that Mrs. Hojsman en- 
deavored to have certain documents microfilmed by a concern in 
Washington which concern advised the committee that it did not 
have definite information regarding the type of documents which she 
desired to have microfilmed. However, she explained to a Washing- 
ton newspaper tliat she desired to have certain documents pertaining 
to illuminating engineering microfilmed which she had obtained 
at the Library of Congress. But that she later secured copies of 
these publications from an engineering concern in New York, and 
therefore did not have them microfilmed. Do j'ou know anything 
about that? 

Dr. CoxDOX". No, I read the stories in the newspapers at the time, 
but I do not know anything about it. You must realize of course 
that microfilm is rather an expensive process and if she could get it 
in a perfectly normal wax of scientific reprint, naturally she wouldh't 
have it microfilmed. And I suppose that these were materials if 
they got these materials from the Library of Congres, that means 
that they are freely available to tlie public and so she got them from 
the Library of Congress. 

Mr. Ta\tnxer. But if she obtained material legitimately from the 
Bureau of Standards, you w^ould give her the service there, of micro- 
filming, would you not ? 

Dr. CoxDox'. Xo. I don't think so. We had such a service, but I 
don't think it Avould have been available to her as being a tiling that 
costs money and it was only intended for official Government use. 

Mr. Taat:x'xer. Did you discuss this matter with Mrs. Hojsman? 

Dr. CoxDOX'. About the microfilming, no. Not to my recollection ; 
it is conceivable. 

Mr. Taa-exx'er. Prior to her appointment as a guest worker, did 
tlie Bureau make any effort to determine whether she was considered 
the subject of concern to any Government agencies? 

Dr. CoxDOx. Well, the way that is done is when these things, all 
of the foreign visitors that came, even those that came for a day or 
so, were reported down to the Department of Commerce and they were 
supposed to check with the military and the FBI, and report back 
to us as to wliether there was any reason not to accept them. We 
didiTr have tlie responsibility for directly doing that ourselves. 



3868 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavenneh. I would like to <ret your fX[)l;ination of this. Dur- 
injr the course of the coininittee's iiivesti^atious it was re[)orted that 
persons connected with the Czech Government had indicated that you 
considered the appointment of persons with Czech background to 
guest-worljer status at the Bureau of Standards as a contribution. 
If you used that term at any time, what did you mean by it ( 
Dr. Condon. I don't recalL 

Mr. Tavenner. It would be a contribution to obtain as guest 
worker persons of Czech background ? 

Dr. Condon. I don't think that I ever used such a statement. Tk6 
general attitude, you see, as you know, the Congi-ess appropriates 
money to bring the foreigners from South America, and the Smith- 
Munclt bill was ])assed by (\mgress giving authority for aj^propria- 
tions to be made for bringing in at our (xovernment's expense for- 
eigners to study in our universities and in our Government agencies, 
and this was in general in accord with the policies of these laws of 
the Congress. So that it is a contribution if one carries out the policies 
as set down by the Congress, but I don't recall any specific illusions to 
the Czech people any more than any other people. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of your directorship of the Na- 
tional Bureau of Standards, did you become acquainted with one 
Joseph Hanc, an attache of the Czech Government in Washington ? 

Dr. Condon. I think so. It doesn't come to mind, I think his name 
was something like Hans, and I don't know how it is spelled, but I 
suppose it is the fellow, he was a man that I met. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was the occasion of your meeting him, and 
what was the extent of your association with him? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I am not quite sure, I am not even sure that I 
have got him identified correctly, there was one man who was on the 
staff of something financial like the International Monetary Fund, or 
something, and I think that he was that fellow, and I met people like 
that at social affairs, and hardly knew them. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did he act in the capacity of a representative of any 
group or government or even in his own behalf make any award of 
any kind to you? 

Dr. Condon. Oh, perhaps he is the man, yes, there was a glass 
bowl, a decorative glass bowl given to me, and I am not quite sure 
whether it was me or the Bureau, anyway I have it. and I will be 
glad to surrender it if it is interpreted as belonging to the Govern- 
ment. 

Mr. Ta\T':nner. We don't want it, but what was the occasion of it ? 

Dr. Condon. There was an occasion of that sort, well, it was just 
an expression of friendliness of the same sort as when you give some- 
body a cigar, they have a very important glass industry, artistic glass 
industry, in Czechoslovakia, and this was made and it was presented 
to me just as a friendly gesture. 

Mr. Tavenner. But what motivated the making of the gift ? 

Dr. Condon. I haven't any idea, other than just the general friend- 
liness. The fact that I had been friendly to {)eople like Mrs. Hojsman, 
and so on. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you acquainted with a person by tlie name of 
Nathan Grejrorv Silvermaster? 



TESTIMOXY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3869 

Dr. CoxDoN. I liaveirt seen him in many years; I did know him. 

Mr. TA^T,NNKR. Will you describe to the committee the manner in 
which you met him ? 

Dr. C0NIXIX. Well. I think I met him at a social party, a dinner 
party, in, and very soon after comins to Washington, let us say Xo- 
vember or December of 1945, and he was at that time an employee of 
the War Assets Administration, which was the agency that had to do 
with the selling of surplus property, and exactly what his rank and 
status was, I don't know, but at any rate he told me that he having 
been trained as an economist rather than a technical man was con- 
fronted with the problem of arranging for the sale and disposition of 
large quantities of war surplus materials in which he needed help 
and guidance from technical people as to the value of it, sort of ap- 
praising it or giving liim some idea if not formally appraising it, 
giving some idea wlt^re he could secure appraisals, and also ideas as 
to what its use was. What might be peacetime uses for things left 
over from the war. So I said fine, we would be glad to help by 
rendering such assistance as we could from the staff of the Bureau, and 
I don't think anything ever came of that, as a matter of fact, he came 
a time or two to my office, in this connection, and I designated one 
member of the staff who had recently retired but was still around on 
a part-time j^ensioner basis to work with him in coordinating any 
help we could give of this kind, but nothing came of it. 

Out of this contact I got to know him and perhaps had half a 
dozen social contacts with him during 1946 and 1947. 

Mr. Tavenner. I did not understand how you first became ac- 
quainted with him. 

Dr. Condon. I just met him at a social party, at somebody's house. 

Mr..TAVENNER. Whose house? 

Dr. OoNDoN. I think it was the home of Mr. John Marsalka. 

Mr. Tavenner. "\^^lat type? Was that just an ordinary social 
affair? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; buffet supper. 

Mr. Tavenner. How long had you known Mr. Marsalka ? 

Dr. Condon. Perhaps 4 or 5 years, and I can recall when I first met 
him, Mr. Marsalka was a professor of history at the University of 
Pittsburgh and the University of Pittsburgh had a contract with the 
War Department to write some military history, and Marsalka was a 
working fellow oil tliat contract, and so was living in Washington and 
I sort of met him as a picking up or continuance of the acquaintance 
that had started in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, you met him, you met Silvermaster at this 
social occasion. Did he speak to you then, at that time, about surplus 
property, and surplus materials^ 

Dr. Condon. It is quite likely, although I am not sure, it may have 
been the second time we met, and he may have come to my office later, 
and I don't remember the exact circumstances. 

Mr. Tavenner, I understood you to say that this business associa- 
tion led to a social association with him over a period of 1 or 2 years. 

Dr. Condon. That is right, in 1946 and 1947. 

Mr. Ta%^nner. Were you a frequent visitor in his home ? 

Dr. Condon. Xo, I think })erhaps I was there at the most thiee or 
four times but I v/ouldn't know exactly. 



3870 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD V. CONDON 

Mr. Tavennek. Did Mr. Silvermaster ever take you into the base- 
ment of his home? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever see any photostatic or photographic 
equipment in Mr. Silvermaster's home ? 

Dr. Condon. No, I don't think I was in anytliing but the living 
room and the dining room and the kitchen. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you read the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley 
given before the committee ? 

Dr. Condon. I read an excerpt of it that Avas recently put into the 
Congressional Record in June of this year. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you not learn of her testimony at or about the 
time that she gave it, when she identified him as Nathan Gregory 
Silvermaster '( 

Dr. Condon. She was 

Mr. Tavenner. She identified herself as a self-confessed former 
courier of an espionage apparatus operated by the Communist Party 
who were underground and worked in the United States Government 
and whose principal was a Soviet agent in New York City. And that 
Silvermaster was one of that group. 

Dr. Condon. I remember reading testimony of it. 

Mr. Tavenner. One of the most important members of that under- 
ground group. 

Dr. Condon. So she said in her testimony in 1948, I guess. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you make any effort to advise the committee 
of any knowledge that you had about him or his activities ? 

Dr. Condon. This committee? 

Mr. Tavenner, Yes. 

Dr. Condon. No ; I have never had much luck in getting answers to 
my letters from this committee. 

Mr. Moui^der. Did you have any knowledge about his activities; 
that is, really the question. 

Dr. Condon. No; I didn't. All of this testimony of Miss Bentley's 
occurred, if I am not mistaken, in the summer of 1948, and I first 
heard that such testimony was being given secretly in the Govern- 
ment about April of 1947, about 15 months before this committee 
made it public, and at that time I wrote to the Department of Com- 
merce a full account of my acquaintance with Mr. Silvermaster, in 
order that they would know exactly all of the circumstances about 
it. So that having done that to the Department of Commerce, I think 
that I didn't deem that it was necessary to communicate further. 

Mr. Tavenner. To whom did you report in the Department of 
Commerce ? 

Dr. Condon. Mr. Adrian Fisher, who at that time was the Solicitor 
of the Department of Commerce and he later was chairman of the 
loyalty board, or maybe about that time he was chairman of the 
loyalty board. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, you have made a statement about the diiii- 
culty in obtaining answers to your letters to this committee. What 
did you mean by that ? 

Dr. Condon. I mean that I wrote to this committee 

Mr. Tavenner. I want to get a full explanation. 

Dr. Condon. I would like to draw the distinction between this com- 
mittee as presently constituted and the comniittee as cor.stituted under 



TESTIMOjSTY of dr. EDWARD U. CONDON 3871 

Parnell Thomas in the Eightieth Congress. On that occasion I wrote 
several letters offering free and full cooperation m all respects, with 
the work of the committee, when I learned that they were interested 
in me, and I have never received any reply to any of those letters. 

Mr. Jacksox. Just to keep the record straight, to keep it balanced, 
I might say that the present committee as presently constituted has 
had a little difficulty in getting an answer to some of its communica- 
tions, at least one. ,i- /-, 

Dr. Condon. I don't think that you can fairly say that, Mr. Con- 
gressman. I would address you by name if I knew it. 

Mr. Jackson. I am Congressman Jackson. 

Dr. Condon. I have only had one letter from this committee. 

Mr. Jackson. That is the one I have reference to. 

Dr. Condon. And you got a reply from that, very promptly. 

Mr. Jackson. Was the reply received in that connection? 

Mr. Ta\^nner. I didn't hear your question. 

Dr. Condon. The question was whether I had replied to the letter 
that I received from this committee last June and the answer is that 

I did. 

Mr. Jackson. Was that letter followed by a subsequent telegram 

from the committee ? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Jackson. It was not? 

Dr. Condon. No ; there have been innumerable newspaper releases 
about this committee's interest in me that I have read, and I have 
clipping files and so forth, but the correspondence is very slim, and 
I have the entire file right here. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me ask you a question about that. You were 
acquainted and it did come to your attention that the chairman of 
this committee by public pronouncement stated in February 1949, and 
also in June of 1949, that this committee would hear you if you re- 
quested it. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, did you prepare an answer to that? 

Dr. Condon. No, I don't deal ; I think it is too serious a matter to 
be dealt with through press releases. 

Mr. Tavenne^r. But did you prepare an answer to it and sign the 
letter? 

Dr. Condon. Prepare an answer ? 

Mr, Tavenner. Yes ; an answer to the public invitation 

Dr. Condon. Wliich? 

Mr. Tavenner. In June of 1949. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, yes, I wrote a letter to the committee, yes, at that 
time. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. And you didn't mail it ; did you ? 

Dr. Condon. I am not sure — \Vliat do you mean ? 

Mr. Tavenner. In June of 1949. 

Dr. Condon. In June of 1949 — excuse me, I was getting confused 
with June of this year. Wliat is the question now ? 

Mr. TA^^;NNER. I asked you if you didn't prepare and actually sign 
a letter to the chairman of the committee when the chairman pub- 
licly announced the invitation for you to come, but you didn't mail it. 

Dr. Condon. I think that may have been true ; yes. I must have a 
stack of stuff that I have written at one time or another. 



3872 TESTIMONY OF DK. EDWAHD V . CONDOX 

Mr. Tavennek. Yon wrote this letter and 3011 didn't mail it. and 
that letter was a rejection of the comniittee's invitation. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. It has been my policy all along not 
to come except under snbpena. 

Mr. Tavennp:r. But you went to the extent of writing the letter and 
signing it, and then you exhibited the letter, did you not, to other per- 
sons for their advice as to whether or not to mail it. 

Dr. Condon. I think I may have ; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. And as a result thev advised von not to mail it ? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Because it would likeh' lead to a hearing and that 
would be bad. 

Dr. Condon. No; I don't recall tliat advice at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. You don't recall that? 

Dr. Condon. Xo; the basis on which it was felt that I should not 
comment under a subpena was that the matter was too important a 
thing to be dealt with so informally as simply in terms of response to 
an invitation, point 1, and point 2 the fact that it was too informal a 
procedure for me to be responding to newspaper press releases, rather 
than to direct communications from this committee. So I didn't. 

Mr. Tavenner. So you did not mail the letter. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Which you had written and which letter rejected 
the offer. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then why is it that having avoided a public hearing 
in June of 1949 by not mailing the letter, that you permitted a repre- 
sentative in the Congress to state on the floor of the Congress that up to 
the present time no opportunity has been given you to respond to these 
charges; doesn't that look like you are playing rather fast and loose 
with the committee ? 

Dr. Condon. I do not think so. 

Mr. Tavenner. Under those circumstances? 

Dr. Condon. As a matter of fact, this particular introductory para- 
graph that Mr. Cole inserted, I didn't write, nor see until it appeared 
in print, and I did not know that he was going to say that. 

Mr. Tavenner. You would not have permitted him to have said 
that, then ? 

Dr. Condon. I think probably not ; no. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you do agree ? 

Dr. Condon. I do not want to be in the role of having criticized 
Congressman Cole for having said that, he just wrote that, I think, as 
a quick introductory paragraph from his own unrefreshed memory 
of the case. 

Mr. Tavenner. Because you had every opportunity in June of 1949 
to appear and you had gone to the extent of writing a letter which you 
felt would lead to a hearing if you made ■ 

Dr. Condon. I think it might be well at this time really to review 
what has happened in this matter, and would you care to have that 
reviewed? 

Mr. Tavenner. Any explanation you desire to make, I am sure the 
committee will hear. 

Dr. Condon. The history of my relationship with this committee, 
or that is to say with the Thomas committee, started in March of 1947, 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3873 

when two of 3'oiir investigators came to my office in the Bureau of 
Standards to ask about the American-Soviet Science Society of which 
I was one of tlie members. And I gave them fully and freely with 
complete cooperation what information I had on it, which was not 
very much, because I had never been very active in the thing, but which 
included the names of the officers of the society, their addresses, and the 
recommendation, and my personal assurance that they would freely 
give any information to the committee that they might seek. That 
was in March of 1947. 51/2 years ago. Hardly had a month gone by 
when there Avere sensational stories in the press to the effect that this 
committee was going to subpena me and going to show me up, and so 
forth. 

In June of 1947 Mr. J. Parnell Thomas, at that time chairman, 
had then published under his signature in two national magazines, 
namely Liberty magazine and American magazine, articles that insin- 
uated improper conduct on my part. These have been subsequently 
inserted also in the Congressional Record so that there is no point in 
repeating them in detail. 

At that time, since the other business had only been informal news- 
paper stories, but this came out under his own signature and doubtless 
he received a fee for it, I thought I should take notice of it and so I 
wrote to Chairman Thon::as saying that I would.be glad to cooperate 
in any way I could with his investigation. It was in June of 1947. 
I received no reply whatever to that letter. About 2 weeks went by, 
and I sent a copy of that letter with a small cover letter to every 
member of the committee, as at that time constituted. I got one or 
two formal-acknowledgment type of replies. 

Throughout the fall of 1947 there was hardly 2 or 3 weeks went 
by that there were not articles published in the Washington papers, 
that is in a particular Washington paper, it happens to be also owned 
by the owner of one of the Chicago papers, saying that I was going 
to be called up and that all of my associations 

Mr. Taa^nner. That ownership is true now but it was not then ; is 
that right ? 

Dr. CoxDox. I think that that serves to identify the paper even more 
closely. 

Mr. Tavenner. But it states the facts as to what the situation was 
at that time, as to ownership ? 

Dr. CoNDOx. It states the facts as to ownership ; yes, the ownership 
is quite clear and it always has been. That is one of the things that is 
honest about it. 

Now, so throughout the fall of 1947 there were stories repeatedly 
in the papers to the effect that I was going to be called up for investi- 
gation and so on. I had already written in June of 1947 saying that I 
would be glad to cooperate or help or do anything I could, and I also 
told your advisers that in March of 1947. and there was no answer. 

In the fall of 1947 I called personally on one member of the com- 
mittee, one of the men who w^as at that time a member of the com- 
mittee, and asked him if he knew of any way that I could be of help, 
to clear this thing up, or expedite it, and so on. He was very courte- 
ous, and in a week or so I got a reply back from him saying tliat so far 
as he could determine there was no intention to press the matter in 
spite of the things being said currently in the newspapers. Then on 
March 1 of 1948 this committee or this subconnnittee gave the report 



3874 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

that was referred to in the opening statement to the ])ress, and not to 
me. It was given to the press at -t o'clock in the afternoon. The 
newspapermen, of course, were calling nie up for connnent within 
minutes after that, and comment on what. I had not seen it. They 
were kind enough to provide me a copy off the press-association ticker. 

Along about 4 : 45 I called up the offices of this committee to ask if I 
could have a copy of the report that referred to me in such critical 
terms and they did not say sorry, the office is closed, you can't have it. 
They said the office is closed, you can't have it. 

So I got it from the press association, and the next day an official of 
the Department of Commerce got it from the office of the committee. 
Within a few days after that I personally came down and attended a 
meeting of this committee as it was going on in Washington and after 
the committee spoke informally to your predecessor, Mr. Stripling, 
and to several members of the committee, Mr. Nixon among them, 
offering to help in any way I could to clear up or expedite or what 
have you. Of course, at that time there was no point in my asking 
for a hearing because every newspaper was full of stories announcing 
that there would be hearings held. Sometime later I was subpenaed 
for a hearing that was set for April 21, 1948, and I, of course, accepted 
service of that subpena, and told the subpena server that I would as 
always be willing to cooperate. I received about 10 days later a 
telegram from this committee signed by J. Parnell Thomas, post- 
poning this thing and saying that the subpena, however, was still in 
force, and I would be notified later. That is the last I ever heard 
from this committee in the Eightieth Congress. I received no com- 
munication whatever from this committee in the Eighty-first Con- 
gress. I received no communication whatever from this committee 
until June of this year in the Eighty-second Congress. 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me interrupt you a moment. You say you 
received no notice from this committee in 1949 ? 

Dr. CoxDON. I don't consider newspaper announcements that I can 
have a hearing if I ask for it a communication to me. 

Mr. Tavejstner. I just wanted to make that plain, that that was an 
invitation extended publicly, which you would not accept. 

Dr. CoxDON. It was an invitation extended publicly which I would 
not accept. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. Then when it was extended to you by letter you 
rejected that? 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. And then the subpena was finally issued. 

Dr. Condon. These matters are all 4 to 41/2, and 5 and Si/o years old, 
and have no consequence whatever as a bearing on my loyalty or dis- 
cretioii. I am a busy man and I have important things to do and I 
think this committee has important things to do, and I have no desire 
to waste your time, but if you insist by serving a subpena, I try to 
cooperate as best I can. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes, sir, and leading up to that, you stated for pub- 
lication in the Congressional Record that you had never been given 
an opportunity to appear before the committee, and you are now 
being given that opportunity. 

Dr. Condon. That is very kind of you. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3875 

Mr. Taa-enxer. Eeturiiino; now to Silverinaster, I want to read to 
you the testiiiiony of Miss Bentley, or this part of it : 

They ^ had set uii in the basement a home-made apparatus for photographing 
documents, for microfilming documents in their cellar, which had been, I under- 
stand, put together by Mr. Ullmann, who is quite clever as a mechanic and had 
a rack on the top which the camera was stuck into and pointed down and they 
had a rack in the bottom where the papers were put in. 

Mr. MtTNDT. You actually saw them using this apparatus on Government 
documents, did you? 

Miss Bentley. Yes, I did. 

Mr. MuNDT. And Mr. Ullmann has seen it, has he? 

Miss Bentley. Mr. Ullmann was the principal photographer. It was he who 
learned photography when it became necessary to photograph documents, and 
it was he who operated it except for those times when he was either away or 
when there was too much to be done by one person alone. At that time Mrs. 
Silvermaster also learned photography and helped with it. 

Mr. MuNDT. Have you seen Mr. Silvermaster in the basement of his home 
watching this apparatus photographing Government documents? 

Miss Bentley. Not Mr. Silvermaster. I was in the basement with Mr. Ullmann 
and Mrs. Silvermaster while Mr. Silvermaster was upstairs. It was not thought 
wise for everyone to be in the basement simultaneously. 

You say you never saw any photographic equipment in the home? 

Dr. Condon.- I was never in their basement. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you ever learn from Mr. Silvermaster any in- 
terest that he had in photography ? 

Dr. Condon. Xo. 

Mr. Ta^t:nner. Did Mr. Silvermaster ever ask you for the produc- 
tion of any documents ? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. You never gave him a document on any occasion ? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I don't think so. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Did you meet Mr. Ullmann in the home of Mr. 
Silvermaster ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; I met him. 

Mr. Ta\-enner. Did you talk to Mr. Ullmann about photography ? 

Dr. Condon. Not about photography. 

Mr. Ta\tenner. About Government information of any character? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. Or documents ? 

Dr. Condon. No ; Mr. Ullmann resided in the home, and he was a 
bachelor who roomed there and he was present when I visited there 
and he was included in the general conversation. 

Mr. Tavenner. You state that you first met Mr. Silvermaster in 
the home of John Marsalka, and that you had known him rather 
intimately. 

Dr. Condon. Now you are writing it rather intimately, I had known 
him over a period of 4 or 5 years in Pittsburgh, 

Mr. Tavenner. I understood you to say you knew him well. 

Dr. Condon. Well, you said "intimately," and I don't know what 
the word connotes, and I had met him at half a dozen different social 
occasions, and that is about all. I don't think I had ever been in his 
house, for example. 

Mr. Ta^t^na^er. Did you have — you say you had not been in his 
house ? 



^ Reference to Mr. and Mrs. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster. 



3876 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWAKD U, CONDON 

Dr. C(»NDt)K. I don't think so. 

Mr. T.UT.xxEK. Where wsis the social function held? 

Dr. Condon. They were mostly these sort of general puhlic-interest 
political meetings, of one sort or another, in a hotel ballroom or in a 
place like the public library having an auditorium, or something of 
that sort. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you have knowledge of the fact that Mr. Mar- 
salka's service with the State Department was terminated due to doubt 
as to his loyalty to the United States and dne to inefficiency and unre- 
liability? 

Dr. Condon. No; I had heard that it was terminated, but I never 
heard the grounds. 

Mr. Moulder. Have yon seen him since that date ? 

Dr. Condon. John Marsalka'^ I don't think that I have seen him 
in 4 or 5 years, certainly not more than casually. At about the time 
in question, namely, about 1948 or so, he became professor of history 
at Yale University, and went there, and if I have seen him it would 
be just a chance meeting, that is about all. 

Mr. Moulder. This discharge from the State Department occurred 
after you knew him ? 

Dr. Condon. To be quite honest, I don't know that it was a dis- 
charge; I know he worked as a young staff man in our Embassy in 
Moscow at some period either before World War II or during it, and 
then he was not there any longer, and it is here described as having 
been discharged, and it was terminated, but I don't really know the 
circumstances. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were you acquainted with Polya Havicht? 

Dr. Condon. That name I don't recognize. Maybe if you give me 
some circumstances I can recall it. 

Mr. TA^^i:NNER. Do you know of any association that that person 
may have had with Vassili Zubilin, an attache of the Soviet Embassy 
in Washington ? 

Dr. Condon. These names are very difficult. In one of the speeches 
in the Congressional Record, Mr. Vinogradoff is referred to as Mr. 
Dempsey Vinogradoff, and I doubt if any Russian ever had the first 
name of Dempsey, and his first name was actually Dmitri. 

Mr. Tav-enner. Are you acquainted with the fact that Mr. Silver- 
master, Mr. Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, has been before this com- 
mittee on several occasions and has refused to testify regarding the 
photographic equipment in his home and the receipt of documents 
and the transmission of them to Miss Bentley as a courier on the 
ground that to do so might tend to incriminate him ? 

Dr. Condon, No ; I am not aware of that testimony, except insofar 
as it was excerpted in this recent thing in the Congressional Record 
in June of this year. I may have read about it in the newspapers at 
that time. My recollection was that about mid-1947 or so he moved 
away from Washington, or whenever it was, about then, and I haven't 
seen him since, and I don't know where he is now, for example. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee would like to take a recess at this 
time. Let us return at 6 : 30. 

( Wliereupon, at 5 : 30 p. m., a recess was taken until 6 : 30 p. m. 
the same day.) 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3877 

EVENING SESSION 

( The committee reconvened, pursuant to recess at 6 : 30 p. m., Rep- 
resentatives Morgan M. ^[onlder, Harold H. V^lf^^, and Donald L. 
Jackson being present, and Mr, Moulder, presiding.) 

Mr. Moui.DER. Tlie committee will be in order. 

Mr. Tavenner. Dr. Condon, I note from the article that you pre- 
pared for publication in the Congressional Record that you said with 
i-egard to Silvermaster : 

Nothing whatever in my association with him gave me the slightest reason to 
believe, and therefore I do not believe, that he is other than a loyal American who 
was trying to do a conscientious job for the Government. 

Is that your belief in the light of the testimony which you have heard 
me read and which was offered by Elizabeth Bentley ? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I think I would have to put in some qualifications 
on that now that I have read the material that was in the Congressional 
Record in June. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you knew at the time 

Dr. Condon. It is still a fact that nothing in my association with 
him was improper, or even suggested, that his behavior in any other 
of his other associations was improper, but, of course, if there is tes- 
timon}' against him 

Mr. Ta\'bnner. You knew of the existence of that testimony back 
during the year in which it was given ; did you not ? 

Dr. Condon, But not in as detailed a way as to its content, and I 
just knew that Elizabeth Bentley had testified against him. 

Mr. Ta^t.nner. But you have already told the committee that when 
you saAv that, you went to the Commerce Department and told them 
all vou knew. 

Dr. Condon. Oh, no ; certainly not. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Didn't I understand you to say that? 

Dr. Condon. What I told them was that I told the Commerce De- 
partment about these matters 15 months before Miss Bentley's testi- 
mony to this committee, on the occasion of my learning that he was 
being investigated by the FBI, 

Mr, Ta%'enner. How did you learn that Silvermaster was being 
investigated by the FBI ? 

Dr. Condon, I was told by Mrs, Marsalka. 

Mr. Tavenner, How did she obtain that information ? 

Dr. Condon. She was told, I presume, by the Silvermasters, but I 
don't really know that fact, 

Mr. Ta\'enner. So although you knew at the time you made this 
statement in March of 1952 for publication in the Congressional Rec- 
ord that he had been investigated by the FBI, that there had been 
testimony relating to him on the part of Elizabeth Bentley, yet you 
were willing to state to the public of the United States that you do 
not believe that he is other than a loyal American. Don't you think it 
was a duty on your part in the light of all of the information that 
you had to make a further inquiry before causing such a representation 
to be circulated throughout the United States? 

Dr. Condon. I have always been very puzzled about the fact that 
these very serious charges were made about Mr. Silvermaster, and 
nothing was done in the way of prosecution. This has sort of led me 
to believe that althougli there was testimony that the testimony per- 



3878 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

haps was not consideied by the Government to be very decisive. I 
prefer to regard a man as innocent until he is proven guilty. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; but is that an excuse for you to publish 
tlirougliout the country your view that he is entirely all right when 
you have made no inquiry altliough you have been put on notice about 
his disloyalty? 

Dr. Condon. I am emphasizing the fact that I have no reason to 
believe on the basis of my own acquaintance or association with him 
that there was anything wrong with him. 

Mr. Jackson. Certainly you know that the reason that no prosecu- 
tion was instituted against Mr. Silvermaster stemmed from the fact 
that he took his stand upon the provisions of the fifth amendment. 
When you say that you were concerned because no prosecution had 
been effected, he took his position upon the fifth amendment. 

Dr. Condon. I don't mean by the committee. I mean prosecution 
instituted by the Government as a result of the FBI investigation. 
1 don't claim to know these things in legal terminology, but here was 
a man about whom very serious things Avere said, and presumably all 
right, and at the same time nothing was done about it. So I supposed 
that perhaps further investigation indicated that there wasn't any- 
thing very serious there after all. 

Mr. Jackson. Well, I will add that there are a number of cases in the 
same category, and he is not alone in that. 

Dr. Condon. It may be, I don't undertake to say that Silvermaster 
is necessarily right, I want to stress more the fact that my own asso- 
ciations with him gave me no reason to doubt anything improper in 
his behavior. 

Mr. Jackson. Not even subsequent to the disclosures that were 
made ? 

Dr. Condon. I am referring to my associations with him. 

Mr. Jackson. But this was subsequent, your statement in the Con- 
gressional Record was a considerable period after your associations 
with him, and did not that tend to cast any new intelligence or any 
new light on the subject so far as you were concerned, these disclosures, 
because if I hear counsel aright, the statement says that I have no 
reason to believe that he is anything other than a loyal American, 
and not that he w^as anything else. 

Dr. Condon. I am not sure that the exact phraseology says that, but 
what is meant is that I have no reason to believe on the basis of my 
acquaintance and knowledge of the case and that is all, that if it seems 
to imply more than that it is not intended. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. It is not a matter of implying, it is a matter of a 
statement. The exact language is this : 

Nothing whatever in my association with him gave me the slightest reason 
to believe, and therefore I do not believe, that he is other than a loyal American. 

Mr. Jackson. That, you will note, Dr. Condon, is in the present 
tense. 

Dr. Condon. That is perhaps a little stronger than if I were writing 
it again I would care to make it. 

Mr. Jackson. These evidences that he has extracted or others have 
extracted from official files, documents which were taken to him for 
photographing, microfilming, is a rather serious situation. One who 
is guilty of it should certainly not be characterized as a good, loyal 
American. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3879 

Dr. Condon. That is if he is guilty. 

Mr. Jackson. If he is guilty. However, there is testimony which 
has not been refuted, and certainly it seems to me that one who is 
accused of treason should take the very first opportunity to deny it 
officially, if he is not guilty. 

Mr. Velde. Dr. Condon, I suppose that you are familiar with this, 
but I would like to read an excerpt from a report of Mr. E. E. Green- 
feld in rating, reviewing, and analyzing the Civil Service Commission, 
dated July 16, 1942, in which it is stated he. Silvermaster, is listed 
in the files of the Seattle Police Department as follows : 

Gregory N. Silvprmaster, alias Gregory Masters, is a national committeeman 
at large of the Communist Party, United States of America. Silvermaster was 
former agitation propagandist of the Filniore suhsection in the San Francisco 
area, thirteenth district, Communist Party. 

The post of national committeeman at large of the Communist 
Party is a rather imjiortant post and did you know anything about his 
being such a national committeeman ( 

Dr. Condon. No; my first knowledge of that excerpt was when it 
was in the Congressional Record in June of this year. I never had 
any indication of that. 

Mr. Velde. Had you known about his being national committeeman 
of the Connnunist Party, would you then ha^-e stated that he was a 
loyal, patriotic American? 

Dr. Condon. Certainly not. I think that I can state that there is 
nobody in my acquaintance that I know to be a member of the Com- 
munist Party, and I don't think that I have had to shun them, because 
I don't think that I have ever been aware of liaving met anv, but there 
are none in my acquaintance, and I certainly would have felt differ- 
ently had I known these things. 

Mr. Velde. Are you acqtiainted with any Communists? Have you 
been acquainted with any? 

Dr. Condon. Not to my knowledge. If by that you mean ])eople 
who are members of the party. 

Mr. Velde. You have never known a member of the Commimist 
Party? 

Dr. Condon. Not to know that he was, and I won't say, I don't 
know who is and who is not, Init nobody that I know who have been 
at the time that I knew them. 

Mr. Velde. Woidd you repeat that last answer? 

Dr. Condon. What I am trying to say is that there is no one, there 
never has been anyone in my personal acquaintance who at the time 
I knew him was a member, and now I had better qualify this, of the 
Comnumist Party of America, and I would naturally assume that 
some of these [)eoi)le from foreign countries that are Communist - 
dominated were probably members of their Commimist Party, and even 
that I didn't know. 

Mr. Velde. You testified that you do know Nathan Gregory 
Silvermaster. 

Dr. Condon. And I don't know for sure that he is a member of the 
Communi.st Party, or was. This thing indicates, and I don't question 
it, but I didn't know it and there was nothing in my acquaintance 
that indicated that. 

Mr. Veldk. If you don't question it, you believe it, don't you ( 



3880 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD V. CONDON 

Dr. (\)MK)X. I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. Veldk. If you do not question it- 



LV. C\)Ni)ON. 1 don't question the fact. I don't question the fact 
that Mr. Greenfeld wrote such a menioianduni. and 1 don't know 
wliether lie knows whether he is factually correct or not. 

Mr. Tavknnek. I noticed that in connection with the quotinir of 
the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley you rather indicated some doubt 
in your mind about the tiuthfulness of her testimony, because I think 
that you used the words "if that is so." 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, are you acquainted with the fact that as a 
result of hei- testimony, largely, William Remington was brought to 
trial and convicted as a member of the C'omnnmibt Party, or for 
perjury in denying his membership in the Connnnnist Party? 

Dr. Condon. No; I remember that Remington had a great many 
difficulties, but I only had a casual newspaper reader's acquaintance 
with it. 

Mr. Tavenner. And that, as a result of her testimony, Abrahan^. 
Brothman was identified and convicted, along with Harry Gold 
and others. 

Dr. Condon. I don't remember hearing the name of Brothman. 

Mr. Tavenner. In the Fuchs case. 

Dr. Condon. I don't know the Brothman name. 

Mr. Tam5nnek. This committee has investigated her testimony very 
fully, and has not learned of any instance in which she was wrong 
in identifying a great many people as members of the Communist 
underground. 

Mr. Jackson. Counsel, may I ask a question : To put it into another 
way, do you know of any instance in which the Elizabeth Bentley 
testimony has been discredited ? 

Dr. Condon. No; nor do I mean to discredit it, I just reserve 
judgment. 

Mr. Jackson. As long as that slight doubt was cast upon the testi- 
mony, perhaps inadvertently, I do not know but I think it should be 
clear and it should go into the record that in no case to my knowledge 
has the testimony been discredited, and it has stood up to this time 
in all aspects. 

Mr. Tavenner. You stated that Mrs. Marsalka informed you about 
15 months before the testimony was given by Elizabeth Bentley that 
Silvermaster was under investigation by the FBI. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did she tell you why he was under investigation? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. What was it? 

Dr. Condon. Well, it was this sort of thing: She did not tell me in 
any explicit detail, but merel}- this sort of thing that has been alleged 
about his alleged membership in a Soviet es})ionage ring or group or 
whatever you call it. 

Mr. Tavenner. During the course of your term as Director of the 
Bureau of Standards, did you become ac(]uainted with a person by 
the name of Ignace Lotowski ( 

Dr. Condon. Well, I am not sure exactly wlien I first met him. 
He was a membei* of the American-Soviet Science Society, and I may 
have had a letter or tAvo and he canie d<)\vi! to -^ee Jiie dnrinji" the first 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3881 

year I was in Wayliin<itoii, and he beino; in New York at the time. 
In tlie summer of 104() he was on tlie official Polish delegation as 
observer at the naval atomic bomb test at Bikini, and I had nothing 
to do with that in tlie sense of accrediting him, he was there. I saw 
him there. 1 saw him and several times subsequently in Washington. 

Mr. Tavexxek. Well, during the course of your acquaintanceshij) 
with him, did he ever request information from us as to the manner 
through which microfilms and photostats o)- journals deposited with 
the Bureau of Standards could be obtained^ 

Dr. Cox^DOX'. No. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Did you also become acquainted with a person by 
the name of Helen Harris, an employee of the Polish Embassy? 

Dr. CoxDOx. Yes. 

Mr. Tavexxek. Did you at any time in response to a request by her 
arrange a meeting between Lotowsky and James Roy Newman? 

Dr. CoxDox. I don't recall it was in response to a request b}^ her, 
but I certainly have introduced Lotowski and James Newman. I 
have forgotten whether she had a part in it or not. 

Mr. Tavexxek. What was the purpose of that meeting? 

Dr. CoxDox. Just ordinary social acquaintance, connected with a 
conunon interest in atomic energy. 

Mr. Tavexxek. Who requested the introduction? 

Dr. CoxDOX'. I think it sounds much more formal when you speak 
about requesting an introduction. As I recall the circumstances 
Lotowski came to visit me one evening for a call, at a time when T 
was m3^self exjiecting to go over and call on James Newman, and 
before going over I called up to ask if it Avas all right to bring this 
fellow oxer, saying he is an interesting person, or something of that 
sort. It was as casual as that, just of bringing people together. • 

Mr. Tavexx'er. That Avould have been at your initiative then rather 
than that of Lotowski, if it happened that way. 

Dr. Coxnox. Yes, you know how social things go, I perhaps asked 
his permission would he like to spend the evening with Newman before 
calling Newman up, and I don't know just quite how that was. 

Mr. Tavexxek. Have you read the testimony of Gen. Isadore 
Modelski. former military attache of the Polish Embassy, in Wash- 
ington, who testified under oath that to his knowledge Ignace Lotovv - 
ski while in the United States was engaged in espionage on behalf of 
the Polish Government ? 

Dr. CoxDox. No; I haven't seen that. Is that public testimou}' of 
this committee ? I haven't seen it. 

Mr. Tavexx'ek. During the course of your directorship of the Na- 
tional Bureau of Standards did you become acquainted with Alexandra 
Lewis, also known as Shura Lewis ? 

Dr. CoxDox. Possibly, not to my knowledge, but not well acquainted. 
I don't remember it. 

Mr. Velde. Could I ask another question there : Coming back to 
Ignace Lotowski, when is the last time you have seen him ? 

Dr. (^oxDoN^. Well, it would be awfully hard for me to say, perhaps 
in early 1948, or late 1947, after the atomic bomb test he had a positioii 
on the staff of the Polish Embassy, for a time and then returned to 
Poland, and I have had no further acquaintaince or correspondence or 
I don't even know where he is. 



3882 TESTIMONY OF DR. KDWAKD U. CONDON 

Mr. Veij>e. Do you remember the circumstances surrounding your 
last meeting? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Velde. No idea whatsoever about it ? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Velde. You don't know wliere lie is now ? 

Dr. Condon. I think he is in Poland, but I don't know beyond that, 
and I have 

Mr. Velde. What causes you to think that he is in Poland ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, his normal position in life was that of being a 
professor of physics, and I think he always regarded this Embassy 
assignment as temporary and went back to his professorship, and that 
is my recollection of it and it may be wrong in some detail. 

Mr. Velde. That is all, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Tavenner. While affiliated with the Bureau of Standards, did 
you meet a person by the name of Frank Malina ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Wliat were the circumstances under which you met 
him? 

Dr. Condon. Malina was a young man who worked in secret rocket 
work during the war at California Institute of Technology, and who 
became after the war much interested in the work of the UNESCO 
organization, one of the bodies of the U. N., and had some sort of ap- 
pointment to the staff of that organization in Paris and I am trying 
to think of the date. But anyway, I would guess mid-1947 or there- 
abouts, and came from Pasadena to Paris and went through Washing- 
ton and called on me and we visited a bit. It happened at that time 
there was one of the meetings connected with the formulation of the 
progi'am of UNESCO under the chairmanship of Milton EisenhoAver, 
in Philadelphia, and Malina and myself, and Mrs. Condon, drove up 
from Washington up to Philadelphia just as a way of traveling up 
together, to attend this meeting. I think he came back with us and 
was in Washington a day or two longer before he went on to go to his 
new position in Paris. 

Mr. Tavenner. According to the information received by the com- 
mittee, Frank Malina was a registered member of the Communist 
Party in California. Did you have any knowledge of that fact before 
entertaininor him in vour home ? 

Dr. Condon. No; I did not. I heard that subsequently. I guess as 
published testimony before the committee. 

Mr. TA\T.NNf:R. Have you at any time been a member of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Dr. Condon. No, I have not, I am not now and never have been. 

Mr. Tavenner. Have you ever been affiliated in any way with the 
Young Communist League or any branch of it? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee has in its possession a photostatic 
copy of a press release dated November 16, 1943, printed on the letter- 
head of the Pittsburgh Council of the American-Soviet Friendship. 
Your name is listed as a member of the board of that council. 

Dr. Condon. I think the exact title is Pittsburgh Council of xVmeri- 
can-Soviet Friendship. 

Mr. Tavenner. No; the letterhead is Pittsburgh Council of Ameri- 
can-Soviet Friendship. Will you exhibit it to him. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3883 

Dr. Condon. It was a branch of the national council. 

^Ir. Tavenxek. When did you become a member of the board of the 
Pittsburgh Council of American-Soviet Friendship? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I don't remember. It was one of these things- 
where I allowed my name to be used along with all of these other dis- 
tinguished Pittsburgh people, and I don't recall ever having gone to. 
a meeting of the council, but I may have. 

jNIr. Tam3nner, That wasn't just a casual joining of that organ- 
ization; was it? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; it was. JSI.y wife was more 

Mr. Ta^'enner. The committee 

Dr. Condon. You may notice on the letterhead my wife was the 
corresponding secretary of this group. 

Mr. Ta\-enner. I was going to call your attention to that — that 
doesn't indicate it was just a casual joining. 

Dr. Condon. She was active in it and I was not. 

]\Ir. Jackson. What was the date of that ? 

Mr. Tavenner. November 16, 1943. When did you become a 
member ? 

Dr. Condon. I am afraid I don't know; it must have been about 
that time. 

]Mr. Tavenner. How long did you remain a member ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, it is one of these temporary things that just sort 
of faded out, and membership was an indefinite sort of thing, and I 
suppose it would be considered that I was a member as long as I lived 
in Pittsburgh, namely, until November of 1915, when I moved to 
Washington. 

Mr. Tavenner. You were aware, were you not, that the Pittsburgh 
Council of American-Soviet Friendship was an offspring from the 
parent organization, known as the National Council of American- 
Soviet Friendship ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes; as a matter of fact, until I just saw this I thought 
they explicitly put it that way on their letterhead. 

Mr. TA^^NNER. Did you also take out membership in the National 
Council of American-Soviet Friendship ? 

Dr. Condon. No ; not as such. 

Mr. Tavenner. Are you now or have you been a member of the 
American-Soviet Science Society? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. TA^TNNER. AYlien did you become a member of it? 

Dr. Condon. That would have been about the same time, more or 
less, the fall of 1943, and that society started under the name of science 
committee of the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, 
and at some later time changed its name, and I belonged to it under 
both names, and I don't remember the exact dates, but more or less 
from the summer or fall of 1943 on. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee has in its possession a photostatic 
copy of a letter under date of March 7, 1946, which was directed to 
employees of the National Bureau of Standards by one Samuel Gelfan. 
On the letterhead of the American-Soviet Science Societv, it carries 
under the inscription, "Affiliated with the National Council of 
American-Soviet Friendship, Inc.'' Your name appears as a member 
of the executive committee. Will you examine it to see if that is 
correct ? 



3884 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Dr. Condon. I will be glad to, and it is not necessary; I was a 
member of the executive committee of this group. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is true, is it not, that in March of 1946 the Ameri- 
can-Soviet Science Society was affiliated Avith the National Council of 
American-Soviet Friendship ? 

Dr. Condon. I would not remember the exact dates, but the sequence 
is it was first called the science committee of the national council, and 
it was later called American -Soviet Science Society, affiliated with 
the council, and later they Avere separate and distinct organizations, 
and I don't remember exactly what dates those things happened. 

Mr. Tavenner. Keferring again to this letter I woidd like to point 
out to you that it is signed by Samuel Gelfan for the membership 
committee and it is addressed to the National Bureau of Standards, I 
understand, an employee whose name has been removed, but whose 
address was the National Bureau of Standards. The letter reads as 
follows : 

It has been suggested by Dr. Condon, who is a member of our executive com- 
mittee, that you might be interested in the activities of our society and member- 
ship in same. We are tlierefore enclosing a brief statement concerning tlie 
objectives and activity of our organization and under separate cover are also 
mailing you a copy of our last bulletin. 
Sincerely yours. 

Did you authorize Mr. Gelfan to write a letter to employees under you ? 

Dr. Condon. I don't remember the exact circumstances of his Avrit- 
ing that letter, but there was a previous thing where they wrote and 
asked me to let people of the Bureau know about this, and they were 
having a general membership drive around and similar letters went 
out to university people around the country. 

Mr. Tavenner. Does this not indicate that you took a rather active 
part in the recruitment of members to this organization? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I think not. 

Mr. Tavenner. By permitting your name to be used among your 
employees ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, it depends upon what you mean by an active part. 
I permitted my name to be used, there is no question about that, but I 
was' very busy at the time and I did nothing more than that. 

Mr. Taa^nner. But could you have been more effective in the 
recruitment of members of persons emploA'ed by you than to have this 
letter sent or worded as it is ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, my recollection is that that letter simply went 
to people who had already expressed an interest in the society, but I 
am not sure of that. 

Mr. Tavenner. This letter says [reading] : 

It has been suggested by Dr. Condon, who is a member of our executive 
committee, that you might be interested. 

It sliows a very direct interest on your part in the employee's be- 
coming a member. Did you make that suggestion ? 

Dr. Condon. Make what suggestion? I may have. My recollec- 
tion was that is the way the thing went 

Mr. Tavenner. You are acquainted with the fact that the parent 
organization, the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, 
was cited as subversive by Attorney General Tom Clark on December 
4, 1947, and September 21, 1948, and that it had been cited by the 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3885 

Special Committee on Un-American Activities as early as March 29, 
1944? 

Dr. CoNDOX. No ; I was only aware of the Attorney General's list, 
and that came, as you can see, much later. In any case, it came up 
at a time when the American-Soviet Science Society had no connection 
with this group any more, and at a time when I did not have any 
further connection, therefore, with the National Council. 

Mr. Tavexner, How many names of employees within the Bureau 
of Standards did you furnish to the American-Soviet Science Society? 

Dr. CoxDON. I don't think that I did any personally, but my recol- 
lection of what happened was this: That they had written out one of 
these sort of letters of o-eneral information, inviting people to become 
members, and it had come to my desk one time when I was very busy, 
and I had described on it "Circulate to division chiefs" ; whereupon 
the Associate Director, Mr. Crittenden, did that, and I suppose what 
liappened was that the names of people that then expressed an interest 
were sent to this society and then they got this letter, but this is sur- 
mise on my part. I did not send any names to the society. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Let me see if this does not refresh your recollection 
about that. I have before me an initialed copy of a memorandum to 
the division chiefs from E. C. Crittenden 

Dr. CoxDOX. That is right ; that is what I referred to. 

Mr. Tavexxer (continuing). On the subject of American-Soviet 
Science Society, dated February 14, 1946, which is just a few weeks 
prior to the letter which we mentioned. This letter reads as follows : 
"The Director is interested*' — who was the Director? 

Dr. CoxDox. I was. 

Mr. TxV^^:xxER (reading) : 

The Director is interested in the development of more adequate contacts with 
scientific worlcers in the Soviet Union, and to this end it is taking part in the 
development of an organization known as the American-Soviet Science Society. 
This society has grown ont of an earlier scientific committee organized by the 
National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc. Its membership is small 
but includes a number of people prominent in various lines of scientific work. 
In pliysics and chemistry, for example, it includes Gilbert N. Lewis, Irving Lang- 
muir, D. A. Macinnes, Marston Morse, and V. K. Sworkin. The reasons for 
existence and the general purpose of the society are given in a statement regard- 
ing the previously existing science committee, a copy of which is attached. 
Presumably a number of members of the Bureau staff would be interested in 
the activities of this society. 

The Director has been asked to submit a list of candidates for membership, 
and, if possible, this list is desired by February IS. The society is still in a 
formulative stage, and the questions of dues and publications which will be 
supplied to members are not yet settled. It is indicated, however, that ordinary 
membership dues will probably be $.S. If you know of members of your division 
who would probably be interested in membership in the society, will you please 
bring this notice to their attention and ask them to give their names promptly 
to Miss Kingsbury? 

That is signed "E. C. Crittenden, Assistant Director," and his initials 
in ink appear above his name. Who was "Miss Kingsbury"? 

Dr. CoxDox. She was my secretary. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Then you not only gave names that you had in 
mind but you had then circulated a letter to the division chiefs direct- 
ing that they make the names available to your office. 

Dr. CoxDOx. That is right. 

Mr. Tavexxer. For this membership campaign. 

Dr. CoxDox. That is right. 



3886 TESTIMONY' OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavenner. I desire to offer the letter in evidence and ask that 
it be marked "Condon Exhibit No. 2.'' 

Mr. Moulder. It is so ordered. 

(The document above referred to, marked "Condon Exhibit No. 2," 
is filed herewith.) 

Mr. Ta\'exner. In your interview with the committee investigators, 
you stated that the American-Soviet Science Society had received a 
grant from the Rockefeller Foundation but that this grant was being 
held pending until the Internal Revenue Bureau could ascertain 
whether the society was entitled to tax exemption. Is that your 
recollection ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you at any time contact the Bureau of Internal 
Revenue on behalf of the American-Soviet Science Society for the 
purpose of expediting the Bureau's findings with regard to tlie Amer- 
ican-Soviet Science Society? 

Dr. Condon. I think I may have telephoned once or twice, and I 
don't think I ever went 

Mr. Tavenner. To whom did you telephone ? 

Dr. Condon. It skips me now, but the person that was in charge, 
I inquired around and found out. 

Mr. Tavenner. AVere contributions to the American- Soviet Science 
Society ever classified as exempt for income-tax purposes by the Bu- 
reau of Internal Revenue? 

Dr. Condon. I believe not. 

Mr. Ta\T!;nner. Well, in the article or in the statement which you 
prepared for publication in the Congressional Record, I read as 
follows : 

The society was given a grant of $25,000 for two successive years by the Rocke- 
feller Foundation, even after it came under the unscrupulous attack of people 
like Witness J. It undertook to do a job by open and aboveboard methods which 
the Government now spends a great deal more to try to do by covert methods. 

Now, actually, there was no money received by the American-Soviet 
Science Society? 

Dr. Condon. The words "given a grant" are used there in the sense 
of the administrative decision by the board of trustees of the Rocke- 
feller Foundation, and to give the grant subject to this tax-exemption 
matter, ancl this has been stated many times publicly, and perhaps 
it is not stated as explicitly there as desirable, but we can clear the 
matter up here by being more explicit. 

Mr. Tavenner. Yes; I am anxious that we do, but in this article 
the impression is given that a grant was made on two successive years, 
and no statement was made that the money was never permitted to be 
paid out to your organization. 

Dr. Condon. I don't think that you should call it my organization. 
I was only one of many distinguished people who belong to it. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you were taking a very active interest in it by 
directing all of the chiefs of your department to ascertain who could 
be enrolled as members. 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; that is right, 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, why was it that you wanted to leave the im- 
pression that this organization had obtained a certain degree of 
respectability by having received $25,000 from the Rockefeller 
Foundation? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3887 

Dr. CoNDOx. I think it obtained all of the respectability that is to 
be obtained from that by the fact that the trustees of the Eockefeller 
Foundation, of wliom John Foster Dulles is one, for example, had not 
once but twice agreed to make such a grant subject to this tax ruling. 

Mr. TAMiNNEE. But it never got the action required from the In- 
ternal Revenue Bureau, because they investigated it. 

Mr. CoxDOx. I don't know why they did not. I don't know. 

Mr. Moulder. You mean for the purpose of determining whether 
it was to be tax-exempt? It was an investigation to determine that? 

Mr. Ta\texxer. Yes. 

Dr. CoxDOx. Yes; that is correct. 

Mr. Ta\texxer. I notice in a letter from Flora M. Rhind, secretary 
of the Rockefeller Foundation, under date of May 13, 1952, the follow- 
ing language [reading] : 

The grant reported above, on which no payments were ever made, is the only 
grant made by the Rockefeller Foundation to the American-Soviet Science 
Society. 

I understood you to state here, and also in your prepared article, 
that grants were given for two successive years. 

Dr. CoxDOX. Well, I suppose that is just a technicality as to language 
as to whether you call this one grant or two. What happened in fact 
was that this grant was made subject to the condition about tax exemp- 
tion, and no answer was obtained from the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 
and they reaffirmed or extended the period into another year, and it 
is a question of language whether you call that two grants or one 
grant made twice. 

Mr. Ta\'exxer. Well, it certainly is only one item of $25,000, and 
it is not two items of $25,000. 

Dr. CoxDOx. That is correct. 

Mr. Moin.DER. It is your contention that they passed upon it favor- 
ably two times ? 

Dr. CoxDox. That is the sense in which I meant "twice." "What hap- 
pened was that they made the first grant, and then it was subsequently 
to that that various sorts of derogatory statements had been made 
about it in the press — I don't mean about the grant but about the 
society — and I am not sure whether those originated with this com- 
mittee or where they came from, but there were insinuations that it 
was a Communist front and so on. Even after those insinuations 
had been publicized, they did extend the grant's availability for the 
second year, and I take that as affirmation of their faith in the honesty 
and integrity and decent purposes of the people that were doing this. 
That is the sense in which I mean it. 

Mr. Tavexxer. Were you a member of the American-Soviet Science 
Society in 1948 ? 

Dr. CoxDox. Well, it is hard for me to say, in this sense : You see, 
the society started during the war, membership consisting of just 
giving a cent and perhaps paying dues of $2 or $3 for 2 or 3 years, 
and then they were always in the state of expecting that this Rocke- 
feller grant matter was going to be cleared up. So they were rather 
inactive, and they did not have any secretarial help, and they did not 
bill people for dues, and then, when it was not ever cleared up, the 
whole society just fell out of existence, and it is a little bit hard for 
me to remember exactly when it died. 



3888 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavenner. Let me see if I can give you some information 
which may refresh your recollection about that. Is it not true that 
as late as 1948 the American-Soviet Science Society was still an 
affiliate of the National Council for American-Soviet Friendship? 

Dr. Condon. I believe not, but I am not quite sure of the date. 

Mr. Tavenner. Then let me give you this information, and you 
can see if it does not refresh your recollection on it. The telephone 
directory for the Manhattan area, in New York, in May of 1948, indi- 
cates that the American-Soviet Science Society had offices at 114 East 
Thirty-second Street in New York City. 

Dr. Condon. I concede the point. 

Mr. Tavenner. And was a subscriber, and you anticipate what I 
am going to state. 

Dr. Condon. I have seen it so often in the newspaper. 

Mr. Tavenner. And was a subscriber for telephone number Murray 
Hill 3-2080, and this telephone directory also indicates that the Na- 
tional Council of American-Soviet Friendship also had its offices at 
114 East Thirtv-second Street, and also was a subscriber to Murray 
Hill 3-2080. Do you recall that fact? 

Dr. Condon. I know nothing about it other than I have seen that 
telephone book listing myself. 

Mr. Tavenner. "Well, now, having had your recollection refreshed 
by that fact, are you not prepared to say that they were affiliated at 
that time, in May of 1948? 

Dr. Condon. No. My recollection is that the society only had 400 
members or thereabouts, and had no staff, no secretarial help of any 
kind, and I think that they simply neglected to tell the telephone com- 
pany to take out that multiple listing at the time when they discon- 
tinued their affiliation. It was a very small outfit. I don't really 
know when this change of affiliation took place, but I am quite sure 
it was earlier than March of 1948. 

Mv. Tavenner. Dr. Condon, you have stated that one of the princi- 
pal purposes of the American-Soviet Science Society in the corre- 
spondence was the development of more adequate contacts with 
scientific workers in the Soviet Union. The committee has ascertained 
that in the course of a speech made by you on March 5, 1946, at the 
conclusion of the Fifth Annual Science Institute meeting in Wash- 
ington, you stated [reading] : 

We must welcome their scientists to our laboratories as they have welcomed 
ours to theirs, and extend the base of scientific cooperation with this great people. 
Of course, we must behave this way toward the scientists of all nations. I only 
mention Russia because she is right now the target of attack by those irrespon- 
sibles who think she would be a suitable adversary in the next world war. 

Can you advise the committee as to your knowledge of the number 
of ximerican scientists who were then in Russian laboratories ? 

Dr. Condon. No. I was referring in that piece to the fact of their 
having invited this group on the occasion of the time when I did not 
make a trip to Russia, that was alluded to earlier, and that that was 
an invitation for them to come and work there and visit there. 

Mr. Tavenner. You have reference to the Soviet Union welcoming 
the scientists from this country. What did you have in mind in par- 
ticular about that ? 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3889 

Dr. Condon, This meeting of the Soviet Academy at which many 
people from not only this comitry but other countries were welcomed 
and invited and treated cordially. 

Mr. TA^"ENNER. The committee also has in its possession a copy of a 
speech prepared for delivery by you before the Washington Academy 
of Science on May 20, 1948, at the Cosmos Club. Do you remember 
the making of that speech ? 

Dr. Condon, Yes, sir, 

Mr. Tavenner, In the course of this speech it is true, is it not? — 
that you stated [reading] : 

I first heard of the Canadian spy cases soon after coming to "Washington. I 
heard about them before the situation became public, and from the President 
himself, who was deeply concerned about the reports he had received from 
Ottawa. 

Do you recall that ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner, Is it not true, also, that you stated in that connec- 
tion that the fact that such misconduct could occur on the part of 
certain persons who had access to official secrets is a shocking thing?' 

Dr, Condon, That is right, 

Mr, Tavenner, Now, what was the date when you received that in- 
formation, approximately ? 

Dr. Condon. I suppose early November of 1945, but it might have 
been late October. I think early November. 

Mr. Tavenner. Did you not have that information as early as 1944? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I did not know the President at all in 1944. 

]Mr. Tavenner. Then it was in 1945. Then you were aware, as a 
result of information that you received from the very highest source 
in this country, that the Soviet Union had espionage apparatus oper- 
ating in the Western Hemisphere for the purpose of securing the 
secrets in the development of atomic energy. That is true, isn't it? 

Dr, Condon, That is true. I knew about the Canadian matters; 
yes. 

Mr. Ta%'enner. Well, did you think the United States was being 
exempted from attention by the Soviet Union ? 

Dr. Condon. As a matter of opinion, I thought probably they were 
here, too; but I did not know that. I only knew the Canadian 
situation, 

Mr, Jackson, Were any extraordinary precautions or additional 
security measures instituted at the Bureau ? 

Dr. Condon. Not at that particular time, but later I appointed a 
full-time security officer there, and we had a very careful review of 
all security procedures and brought in the security officers of the 
Army and the Navy and the AEC and about that time, too, the De- 
partment of Commerce appointed a full-time security officer, a man 
of considerable experience in military intelligence work, and we 
always worked very closely with him. 

So the procedures were much more formal after about 1948 than 
they had been before. I don't mean to imply that they were lax before, 
but they were formalized and more carefully checked up, I would 
say. 

Mr. TA^T:N]srER. Then if you had been alerted as early as 1945 to the 
efforts that were being made by the Soviet Union in this country to 



3890 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

obtain information of a secret character, why did you not take greater 
precautions in your associations with people like Silvermaster, and 
the other people whose names have been mentioned? 

Dr. Condon, I don't know what kind of precautions you mean, 
I did take precautions in the sense of not ever discussing classified 
information with them, and it seems to me that that is adequate. 

Mr. Ta\t:nner. Well, in the case of the young scientists, of course, 
that occurred a little earlier, I believe — no, the young scientists stayed 
in your home at a later period. 

Dr. Condon. That is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. And having been alerted to this problem by this 
interview with the very highest source of information in this country, 
still you made no inquiry or endeavored to give no word of warning, 
and while you were still Director 

Dr. Condon. Word of warning on what to whom ? 

Mr. Tavenner. In regard to Communist Party activities of these 
young scientists, with whom you were acquainted and with whom 
you discussed their testimony. 

Dr. Condon. I didn't discuss their testimony, they never told me 
that they were in Communist Party activities and in fact they took 
constitutional privilege not to tell it here, I believe. 

Mr. Tavenner. And you just let it rest at that. 

Dr. Condon. Well, they had no access or relationship to classified 
material at the Bureau of Standards, and there was no need to do 
anything more. 

Mr. Tavenner. But you endeavored in the case of Dr. Bernard 
Peters, without any investigation, although you had been forewarned 
l)y this information from the President 

Dr. Condon. Oh, no. Dr. Bernard Peters was in no way identified 
with or mixed up with these Canadian cases. 

Mr. Taa'enner. I understand, but you were alerted by that infor- 
mation as to the extent to which the Soviet Union would go in ob- 
taining information relating to our secret defense projects. 

Dr. Condon. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Tavenner. And yet you would condemn Dr. J. Robert Oppen- 
heimer without having made any investigation of your own, or made 
any inquiry regarding the true picture as to Dr. Bernard Peters. 

Dr. Condon. I don't believe I follow you there. 

Mr. Tavenner. What I am trying to do 

Dr. Condon. I don't believe that was a question, and I don't know 
how to respond. 

Mr. TA^TNNER. I am trying to ascertain whether or not you were 
just callously indifferent. 

Dr. Condon. No ; I was in no sense callously indifferent, and I have 
never, so far as I know, I have never in any way violated any security 
regulation, through carelessness or any other way. Peters had no 
connection at this time with any of the secret matters, and I did not 
discuss any of the secret matters with him. 

Mr. Tavenner. Now, in the course of this speech on May 20, 1948, 
you devoted one section of it to the topic of compartmentalization in 
science. I do not believe I can give an accurate description of that 
without reading it, and it is just about a page. It is a little over a 
page: 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3891 

COMPARTMENTALIZATION IN SCIENCE 

Detailed practices were quite different in different projects. I can only speak 
from iirst-hand knowledge of two of them, microwave radar and the atomic 
bomb. Tliis brings me to the subject of compartmentalization. By compart- 
mentalization in the jargon of secrecy policies is meant the policy of not allowing 
a man to know any more than he needs to know in order to play his part in the 
working organization. The theory back of this, I suppose, is that if somehow 
he should fail to be reliable, the least he knows the least he can tell. The idea 
is easily applicable in military operations. Very few need to know the over-all 
war plans, otliers will be given orders covering their part when their time comes. 
It is conceivable that a Navy gunner does not need to know anything about the 
radio on his ship, and so on. It is likewise quite true that a minor employee in 
a scientific research laboratory does not need to know what the over-all ob- 
jective of the laboratory is. If it is his job to wire up and adjust some specialized 
electronic gear according to fairly explicit directions, he is not hampered in his 
work by not knowing what the gear is for. The difficult problem here is to know 
where to draw the line. I am strongly of the opinion that the research scientist 
needs to feel free to get any information he wants from other branches of the 
research organization. There is a certain small extra risk if the man proves 
to be unreliable, but one more than makes up for it in the increa.sed effectiveness 
with which he can work. That there is no general agreement on policy here is 
shown by the fact that there are a great variety of opinions on this subject which 
have found official acceptance. 

For example, the British seem to have followed the policy among high-level 
personnel of giving them free access to anything whatever. The men were, of 
course, asked not to waste their time by unnecessary visiting around, but each 
individual was allowed to be the judge of that. The contrast between the Amer- 
ican and British systems was especially striking on the atomic bomb project. 
After our British friends came over in large numbers in the fall of 194.3 to give 
us their help on the job, the Americans were bound by strict rules of compart- 
mentalization. It was extremely difficult to get information from one part of the 
project if you were on another part, even though a clear need existed. What 
made matters more difficult was the fact that because of such secrecy, one even 
did not know whether the desired information existed or whether to go ask for it. 
The British, however, had no such rules, and this was a great benefit to us Amer- 
icans, for the British were able to supply badly needed data, the lack of which 
might have seriously delayed our work in several phases of the project. 

The moral here is self-evident. Excessive compartmentalization threatens 
our own goals. 

There was another amusing contrast between early British and American 
policies on atomic energy. In America there was for a long time a tendencj" to 
exclude all foreign-born scientists from work on the project. In Britain, how- 
ever, it was felt that the atomic bomb was a very long-range project, with chances 
of success so remote that the native British scientists could not be spared for it, 
so in Britain the project was put almost entirely in the hands of the refugee 
scientists at first. Likewise, this was remarkable contrast between the degree of 
compartmentalization and the microwave radar field and that in the atomic bomb 
field as practiced in our American laboratories. With the microwave field at the 
Radiation Laboratory in Cambridge. Mass., there was no compartmentalization 
whatever, or at least none that I was aware of. INIore than that, there were 
frequent secret conferences on special topics, attended by hundreds of staff 
members, people in all parts of the subject went to a great deal of trouble to keep 
those in other parts fully informed. I think there was a great deal gained by 
this lack of compartmentalization in the field of microwave radar. 

I also think that we would have had a much harder time with the atomic-bomb 
project if our British friends had not short-circuited compartmentalization for us. 

Do you still have the same views about compartmentalization after 
learninij what Fuchs did for Russia under that system ? 

Dr. Condon. Fuchs was never under compartmentalization, and he 
had full access to everything, as I understand it. 

Mr. Tavenner. And it was because of that fact that he was not 
under compartmentalization that he was able to give the valuable 
secrets to Russia, was it not? 

Dr. Condon. I expect so. 



3S92 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Mr. Tavenner. And when you speak of the British short-circuiting 
our compartmentalization, you also meant the Kussian Government 
short-circuited it, too'^ 

Dr. Condon. As it turned out, I was just as shocked as anybody at 
discovering that Fuchs was there throughout the war. 

Mr, Tavenxer. So this tlieory which you were supporting and 
lighting for from the time that you were at Los Alamos, turned out in 
practice not to be a very successful thing ? 

Dr. Condon. There is nothing wrong with the principles stated 
there, what was wrong was admitting Fuchs to the project, which I 
certainly never would have done. 

Mr. Jackson. You say you never would have admitted Fuchs to 
the project? 

Dr. Condon. Xot on the basis of what I have learned subseo.uently, 
and, of course, it is very difficult to know exactly what was known by 
them at the time, although it has been stated in the newspapers that 
it was known in the official records that he had a Communist record in 
Germany. 

Mr. Tavenner. Well, but varying in degree only, Mr. Fuchs gave 
away atomic secrets, and Mr. Silvermaster handled things a little dif- 
ferently, and he only photographed top secret documents from State, 
War, and Navy Departments, and you would not admit Mr. Fuchs in 
view of what happened, but you gave Mr. Silvermaster a very fine 
•character reference after the same facts were known, and it is some- 
what inconsistent. 

Dr. Condon. The distinction in my mind is that JMr. Fuchs had a 
trial and he himself confessed and a great deal of evidence was brought 
out, whereas in the Silvermaster case so far as I know" there has been 
no judicial action taken at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. It is my understanding in connection with that, and 
1 am glad you mentioned it, because I am informed that in many of 
those instances where no prosecution followed the disclosure of the 
facts, the statute of limitations on the offense ran. 

Dr. Condon. I did not know that. 

Mr. Tavenner. I believe that to be the case, Subject to correction, 
which unquestionably was the case in the Silvermaster instance. 

Did 3^ou have occasion to meet Dr. Carl Fuchs? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I have never met him. 

Mr. Velde. Did you have an opportunity to meet any of the con- 
victed spies in the Canadian spy case? I think there were nine of 
them. 

Dr. Condon. There was one man who got his doctor's degree at 
Princeton and I had known him as a graduate student who was ac- 
•cused but this particular man after a trial was acquitted, and so that 
is the only personal acquaintance I had with any of those people. 

Mr. Velde. You were not acquainted with Dr. May? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I have never met Dr. May. 

Mr. Tavenner. The committee is in possession of the clipping from 
the New York Times dated June 12, 1949, which quotes you as saying, 
"He," referring to yourself, "said the FBI pays pretty good fees to 
its informers, and that he has had a look at his own FBI file. There 
are a lot of things about me they don't know. I have seen my file. 
I can make a lot of money hj selling them information about myself, 
I suppose. I could use the money." 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3893 

Dr. Condon. I don't remember that at all. 

Mr. Tavenner. You don't? 

Dr. Condon. I could use the money. 

Mr. Taatenner. Well, did you see your FBI file ? 

Dr. Condon. No ; I don't understand how this got started, but I have 
not seen my FBI file. 

Mr. Tav^enner. In your present employment with the Corning Glass 
Works, are security regulations in force ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. That is because that company has contracts for 
defense items with the Army and the Navy ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Matters relating to top-secret weapons, or secret 
weapons. 

Dr. Condon. I am not sure, you know, as to the level of classifica- 
tion. It represents only a small part of the business, perhaps 10 
percent or so. 

]\lr. Ta"stnner. At the time you were with the Atomic Energy Com- 
mittee at the Senate, did you make requests for any classified or secret 
information from the Manhattan project? 

Dr. Condon. I am not sure whether I did personally or whether 
Senator ]McMahon did as a result of my staff work for him, but requests 
were made; yes. 

Mr. Tavenner. Were any of the requests refused ? 

Dr. Condon, Yes ; they were. 

Mr. Ta\^nner. On what grounds ? 

Dr. Condon. Well, I think that is dealt with in the material that 
I put in the Congressional Record, it was just a general question of 
how much the Senate should be allowed to laiow about the project 
and the President persuaded Senator McMahon not to ask for very 
much and so they did not and that was all there was to it. 

Mr. Tavenner. Do you have security clearance in the work in which 
you are now engaged? 

Dr. Condon. I think it is in pending status, as you referred to it. 
You see, these things are redone every time one changes employment, 
and it has not been completed yet, the reissue. 

]Mr. Ta\t:nner. I have no further questions. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Velde, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Velde. Dr. Condon, going back to your period of your career 
that you spent in San Francisco, by the way, what were the dates of 
the beginning out there and the ending ? 

Dr. Condon. You mean in Berkeley ? It was essentially from Sep- 
tember of 1943 to February of 1945, as I recall it. 

Mr. Velde. And during that time you were in constant association 
with Dr. Weinberg ? 

Dr. Condon. Not constantly, 

Mr. Velde. How often were you in association with the young 
scientists out there ? 

Dr. Condon. Perhaps some of the others that have been mentioned, 
more often than Dr. Weinberg, j^ou happened to pick one that I did 
not know so well, and he perhaps a half a dozen times, and the others 
more than that. 

Mr. Velde, Now, Dr. Frank Oppenheimer, then, for instance ? 



3S94 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

Dr. CoxDox. I think in its case, the nature of our work was such 
that we were in almost daily contact. 

Mr. Velde. Did you ever spend any time socially with Dr. 
Oppenheimer ? 

Dr. Condon. Yes ; I have been at his house. 

Mr. Velde. Any special type of meetings, or was it just social 
gathering? 

Dr. Condon. Just social gatherings. 

Mr. Velde. Do you remember any of the people who were at those 
meetings ? 

Dr. Condon. No, other than that it tended to be mainly the people 
on the project, these other people working there. 

Mr. Velde. How about Dr. Irving Fuchs ? 

Dr. Condon. I am not aware of having met him at the time, but I 
may have ; I don't know him well. 

Mr. Velde. And Bohm ? 

Dr. Condon. Dr. Bohm I knew very well, perhaps more closely than 
others. 

Mr. Velde. Did you spend any time socially with him ? 

Dr. Condon. Not so much so ; he was a young bachelor, and he was 
a rather shy type and he was not the social person with the group I 
was with as the others. 

Mr. Velde. Well, do you recall any meetings that you had with him, 
socially or otherwise, during the time you were out there ? 

Dr. Condon. You must realize that we were organized more or less 
into divisions, and I was the head of what is known as the theoretical 
physics division of the laboratory, and he was a member of the staff 
and in that sense I was his supervisor, and so we came into frequent 
contact in connection with the work. In that sense I knew him better 
perhaps than any of the others that have been mentioned. 

Mr. Velde. But you cannot remember the names of any other people 
that were in attendance at any of the social functions out there? 

Dr. Condon. No. 

Mr. Velde. It strikes me as a little bit unusual. I don't have very 
good memory, but I can remember a great many people that I asso- 
ciated with out there at that time, and I was out in Berkeley at that 
time. 

Dr. Condon. Did we meet ? I don't recall that. 

Mr. Velde. I don't think that we met, Dr. Condon. I was an FBI 
agent out there working at Berkeley, Calif., during that time. But 
it does appear to me. Dr. Condon, that while we do not want to cause 
you to be thought guilty by association with a lot of these Communists 
and espionage agents, and so forth, it is a little bit peculiar that you 
seem to have hung around them like flies hanging around a pot of 
honey, and, in view of the fact that you did have at that time a very 
confidential assignment, I would say I am just a little bit surprised. 
I wonder if you could explain that for me — the fact that you have 
had so many acquaintances with the known Communists and espionage 
agents, and so forth. 

Dr. Condon. Well, I think perhaps in the first place there is an 
unbalanced impression given because they are not only kinds of people 
we have talked about here, and I know hundreds of other people that 
have not been mentioned here and I presume will not be. But that is 
one thing, and, secondly, as I have tried to say, during the time of 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3895 

my association with these young boys at Berkeley I had no reason to 
believe that there was anything improper in their behavior, all the 
more so that they had secured status throughout that period. In the 
case of Wollman, either I did not know him at Berkeley — I only knew 
of him because some of these things that were spoken about, about 
Tiis being transferred into the Army, which occurred just prior to my 
coming there. I only met him later when he came to Washington. 

But I don't think — I think if we had time really to list all of my 
friends and acquaintances one would find that there is a very small 
fraction indeed who have even been mentioned in these ways, and none 
that I know of that have been found guilty of anything. 

Mr. Velde. That is all. 

Mr. Moulder. Mr. Jackson, do you have a question ? 

Mr. Jackson". I know how exhaustive a process of this kind is, and 
I am going to try not to be unduly long about it. 

Dr. Condon. I would be happy to clear the whole thing up. 

Mr. Jackson. I think in that connection this matter has been booted 
about so long that I think it is perhaps just as well that you have an 
opportunity to come face to face with the questions and we have an 
op])ortunity to come face to face and ask them. 

Have you read The Shameful Years, the document of the com- 
mittee ? ^ 

Dr. Condon. No ; I don't think so. 

Mr. Jackson. Thirty years of Soviet espionage in the United 
States. With the compliments of the committee, because a number 
of the people who have been here mentioned tonight are included 
among those 

Mr. Spence. Could I ask for one of those as counsel ? 

Mr. Jackson. All right. 

Dr. Condon. This was released after I left Washington and these 
things don't get very good circulation up in New York State. 

Mr. Jackson. They get very good circulation in my State, Doctor. 

Dr. Condon. I would be glad to be put on your mailing list. 

Mr. Jackson. I should be very happy to put you on my mailing 
list. But I wish that you would appreciate, I think it is very im- 
portant that everyone appreciate the situation in which the com- 
mittee finds itself in this matter. This was simply not a matter of 
calling a very famous and very eminent scientist to the stand in order 
to harass or embarrass you in any way. The committee was con- 
fronted with a number of related facts, all of which appeared to be 
related facts which needed explanation, in the opinion of the com- 
mittee members. Among those present at the time the matter was dis- 
cussed, it was unanimously decided that the matter should be brought 
to a head. These facts, briefly, and I have not marshaled all of them, 
I have put down several which occurred to me during the course of 
the hearing. 

The first is your expression of some dissatisfaction with the security 
measures which were considered at that time necessary by the military 
authorities at Los Alamos. 



1 Reference to a pamphlet issued as a committee print on Dec. 30, 1951, and as H. 
Kept. No. 1229, 82d Cong. 2d sess., on Jan. 8, 1952. 



3896 TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 

The second fact, the entertainment by you in your home upon Gov- 
ernment property, I miglit add, in passing, for which Congi^ess appro- 
priated funds to 

Dr. Condon, For whicli I paid rent. 

IVIr. Jackson. Maintain, and in which you entertained a number 
of young scientists who had or were about to appear before congres- 
sional committees and refuse to answer questions which the commit- 
tees were duly authorized to ask pursuant of their obligations under 
the law. 

Three, that at least two of these young scientists are later disclosed 
to have been engaged in activities, to be charitable, of a very dubious 
nature, and refused to affirm or deny the allegations made against 
them. 

The fourth fact : That you take then a fellow scientist to task because 
he sees fit in executive session of this committee to give the committee 
certain information with respect to the alleged Communist activities 
of a third scientist. 

Dr. Condon. I don't believe it was put in quite those terms. 

Mr. Jackson. If I err, I hope that you will stop me and correct me 
on tliem. 

The fifth point, you vouchsafe an excellent character for a man 
wlio had been accused and who had failed to meet the accusation in 
any way of espionage activities. 

Dr. Condon. I don't vouchsafe an excellent character. I merely 
sav that nothinc: in my association with him indicated anvthin": 
improper in his behavior. 

Mr. Jackson. Or that he is anything other than a loyal American. 
This following the disclosure before the committees of the Congress. 

Dr. Condon. This refers to my acquaintance with him. 

Mr. Jackscn. But you said he is a loyal American. 

Dr. Condon. If you like, it is badly phrased. I would not quarrel 
over tliat, but I want to be clear on the position. 

^Ir. Jackson. The sixth point, which I believe important, is the 
fact that a number of professional and social contacts, and this point 
has already been touched upon, were had by you with people who 
were later to be determined to be engaged in subversive activities and 
in actual espionage. 

Dr. Condon. Who were they ? 

Mr. Jackson. Mr. Silvermaster for one. 

Dr. Condon. And it has not been determined. 

Mr. Jackson. Well, I believe it has been determined failing any 
positive action on the part of Mr. Silvermaster to disabuse the minds 
of the American public. I think the American public generally be- 
lieves that failure to respond to a charge of treason must be accepted 
in some measure as an evidence of guilt. 

Dr. Condon. Well, in any case, I haven't seen Mr. Silvermaster 
hardly since these things became known to me. 

Mr. Jackson. I merely set those points forth as giving some evi- 
dence of an indication of the position of the committee, which is 
charged under Public Law 601 with investigating subversive activities 
originating outside of the country, and that was the position of the^ 
committee. 



TESTIMONY OF DR. EDWARD U. CONDON 3897 

I think a great man}' of tlie points have been cleared up, and some 
have been cleared up in my mind, and others will probably never be 
satisfactorily cleared up, as a matter of fact. 

The thing which I find most difficult to rationalize in my own mind 
is the fact that one in a very sensitive and strategic and vital po- 
sition in time of w-ar would through some chain of coincidence per- 
haps number among his friends and acquaintances and contacts the 
individuals whom we have discussed here tonight. I say that may be 
the long arm of coincidence, and I am willing to accept your statement* 

I have no further questions. 

Mr. Moulder. Dr. Condon, the present members of the subcom- 
mittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities has adopted and 
constituted the policy of giving every person who claims to have been 
unjustly smeared or injured in testimony, an opportunity to appear 
before the committee, and defend himself and make such explanations 
as deemed proper. 

Do you wish to make any further statement at this time in answer 
to the statement made by Mr. Jackson, or by Mr. Velde ? 

Mr. Spexce. I think Dr. Condon should very seriously consider. 

Mr. Moulder. Do you wish to advise with the doctor? 

]Mr. Spexce. I want to ask permission for Mr. Condon to file a 
statement if he thinks necessary, in reply to the statement by Con- 
gressman Jackson. 

Mr. Moulder. That is for the record ? 

Mr. Spexce. Yes ; for the record. 

Mr. Moulder. He will have the privilege of filing such an answer 
or statement. That is granted and it will be made a part of the record 
in this proceeding. 

The witness is excused. 

Dr. CoxDox^ I have nothing other than to say I thank you very 
much for the courtesy of this hearing, and I think that we could have 
cleared it up if it had been done 4 years ago, but it is better late than 
never, I suppose. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JNIoulder. Each member of this committee has requested me as 
the acting chairman of the closing session to express our appreciation 
and gratitude for the courteous cooperation extended to the com- 
mittee in its work here by the police of Chicago and also our apprecia- 
tion for the cooperation of the radio and the newspapers, in our work 
and endeavors to expose communistic and subversive activities in 
this area. 

Also our sincere thanks and the appreciation of the committee and 
its staff for the many courtesies and accommodations in our work by 
the officials and custodians of this building. Do you wish to make any 
further statement? 

Mr. Velde. I just want to concur in the statement that you have 
just made. I am glad to be here in Chicago, in my home State, and 
to have this association with the other Members of the Congress here 
in my home State. 

Mr. Jacksox. I associate myself with your statement and I appre- 
ciate it very much. 

Mr. Moulder. The committee will stand in recess. 

(Whereupon, at 8 p. m. Friday, September 5, 1952, the subcom- 
mittee recessed subject to the call of the chairman.) 

X 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05018 308 4 



I3^f