THE CASE OF DR. PAULING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00149R000200330099-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: November 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 17, 1999
• Sequence Number: 99
• Publication Date: October 14, 1960
• Content Type: NSPR

Qta.tl icy,. `N { t,; .ci
droved For Release
of the hearings of the Serrate Subcom-
mittee on in.ernal Security in the case
of Dr. Linus Pauling. I should like to try
to set the record straight.
First, I wish to emphasize that the. Sub-
'committee is r:ut investigating Dr. Pauling's
viewpoint on i,ictear testing. Nor is there
Any question of nis right or the right of any
Americar. citizen to petition tile.United
States Govarriment - her directly or indi-
rectly via the Ur fed Nato ns. Furthermore-,
it accepts the tact that the great majority
of those who sighed the petition, srgged it
in complete gcod faith as an appropriate
er; re-sion of their personal views.
The Subcommittee is investigating one
thing and one thing only: Was there sub-
stantial. Communist participation in the
organization of the petition' Was the
petition ,,tilized for Communist propa-
ganda nurposcs In support of Soviet
foreign policy, and if so, in what manner
and to what degree'
Dr. Pauling has been asked for two
things by the subcommittee:
'lie has been ask"d for the actual aig-
na`tures of 'those who signed the petition-
singe he filed typewritten lists instead of
the originals or photographic facsimiles
with the UN.
H~ has been asked for the letters he
received transm'ttinp to him signatures or
namesf for the petition.
I believe these are-simple and reason-
able're4uests. Any official in government
who received a petition on any question
that 'consisted of typewritten lists of
names, would either ignore the petition or
ask to see the original signatures: More-
over, the authenticity of names on a peti-
tion is, in',reneral practice, eattabliahed by
the certification of whoever gathered the
I signatures.
It is to be regretted that Dr. Pauling lisp
respondwl to $`r' `' - or for that mat
tration*$ test-ban policy,
ter, with Dr. Pauling's personal version
of this policy, they would. 1 am confident,' ?
ter
still consider it neccssarY in the inter-
ests of'our national security, to investigate
the matter of Communist participation. I
The arguments contained in Dr.. Paul-t
may or may not have beent
intC s s1tition in this the Subcom- 1
intrinsically valid:
judgment. Howeve,~r.t,
mtttee_ dries not p
apparent that thore has been much mis- 'lieve in its purpose. A Communist never'
understanding of the purpose and scope acts simply as an individual. He is a mem-.,
ber of a disciplined, conspiratorial argaa.
ization, directed by a hostile foreign gov.t,..
erninent which, in statement after stater'
ment from Lenin through Stalin ^nd'
Khrushchev, has committed itself to busty'
the Western democracies. Whatever action'
a Communist takes is taken under orders
and is intended to subserve the Interests
of the Communist conspiracy. That is why
the question of Communist participation is
of importance.
The Subcommittee's interest in Dr. --
Pauling's petition is justified by evidence'
already received by the Subcommittee re-
specting infiltration of the test-ban move-
rriient.
Dr. I auhng has stated that he refuses
'?as a matter of conscience" to make public
the names of those who collaborated with
him in organizing the petition or the let-
ters of transmittal received from them
because this would expose them to to-,
prisals.
For the life of me, I cannot un4erstand
this talk about "reprisals."
The general position that Dr. Paullhg
holds on nuclear testing is a widely held
one. For my own part, I consider it mis-
talten: but I recognize that it is shared by
many Americans who are genuinely con-
cerned about what they consider to be the
best interests of the United $takes. It is, In'
some measure, the position of the ad-
ministration. Given this situation, it Is
preposterous to suggest that the subcom-
mittee would or could inflict reprisals. -
doubly preposterous in view of the fact
that many of those who collaborated with
Dr. Pauling were nationals of ? 'foreign'
countries.
It has been stated by Dr. Pauling and by
others that the Subcommittee's action in
this case constitutes a violation of the right
of petition. I know of no definition of the
right of petition that would confer the.
;xi.ilcge of secrecy or anonymity on the,
yanly rs of .petition. A petition is by its
itu.e a public act and in this sense,
i h,lc organization, it ce'mes under
r ;irtc of full disclosure.
TuoMAis J. Dow),
Acting Chairman,
V. S. Senate Subcommittee
t` ingtort on Internal Securit
Approved For Release 2000/05/24: CIA-RDP75-00149R000200330099-9