Mr. Ryan came back and said this dated March 25, 1950:

Dr. JOHN R. STEELMAN,

The White House, Washington, D. C.

Friend JOHN: Many thanks for your nice communication of March 23, 1950, regarding Edith Cameron Wall and, although I do not usually go in for reporting people, I felt it my duty in this case.

With best wishes, I remain,
Sincerely,

JOSEPH P. RYAN.

That was the exchange of correspondence, and that was the last that was heard on the case until this thing came up 14 months later. Now, we did not make a routine investigation at that time. Senator FERGUSON. When did you interview Miss Wall? Mr. HUMELSINE. Immediately after that, 14 months ago. result of that, I went over her personnel security file. We checked her and rechecked her.

She has the cleanest record I have ever seen of any individual.

QUESTION OF FAILURE TO INTERVIEW MR. RYAN

Senator FERGUSON. I still do not understand how you could check her story and not talk to the man who had sent in the wire, and who now says that what she told him was that she wanted him to cooperate with them on the strike.

Mr. HUMELSINE. Well, everything that we have on her, and on the basis of her whole life history, and on the basis of her conversations with the 12 other labor leaders

Senator FERGUSON. They weren't in on the MAP program. This was the only man who was connected in any way with such a program. These other labor leaders had nothing to do with longshoremen.

Mr. HUMELSINE. No. They had to do with other labor activities. Senator FERGUSON. Yes; but not with longshoremen. Ryan had direct contacts with the longshoremen.

Mr. HUMELSINE. That is right.

Senator FERGUSON. I do not understand why you did not interview him to find out what this woman did say. You never even found out what she said, did you? Or what he claims she said, only that it was in conflict.

Mr. HUMELSINE. The only thing we have there was his telegram, wanting to know her background. As a result of that, Dr. Steelman replied.

Senator FERGUSON. Why did you not make inquiries? As to what was meant by the difference between their policy and her policy?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Well, actually, at the time that this occurred. I asked for her background, and we never had any indication of anything that he said on the thing.

Senator FERGUSON. When did you get his wire to Dr. Steelman?

Mr. HUMELSINE. I just got that wire when this thing came up as a result of the Riesel column.

Senator FERGUSON. When did you give Congressman Walter a report on it?

Mr. HUMELSINE. I gave Congressman Walter a complete report on May 25, 1951.

Senator FERGUSON. That is May 25 of this year?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir. That was a report on the basis of the investigation that had been made 14 months ago.

Senator FERGUSON. When did Congressman Walter first get in touch with you?

Mr. HUMELSINE. He first got in touch with me some time in May, May 14, 1951.

Senator FERGUSON. When did you say?

Mr. HUMELSINE. May 14, 1951.

Senator FERGUSON. And you did not make a new investigation then?

Mr. HUMELSINE. At that time?

Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Mr. HUMELSINE. No; I did not make a new investigation, except to have a very complete talk with one of the labor leaders that she had seen before, although we had already checked with those over a year ago.

Chairman McKELLAR. Are there any further questions?

Senator FERGUSON. You checked with one other labor man?

Mr. HUMELSINE. No, sir; we checked with every other labor man over a year ago.

Senator FERGUSON. You personally checked with one of them? Mr. HUMELSINE. I, personally?

Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, I myself.

Senator FERGUSON. Who was it?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Mr. Lovestone, the Director of International Activities of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Senator FERGUSON. Do you not think that if you had conferred with Ryan, you might have learned what Ryan's story was?

Mr. HUMELSINE. We had Ryan's story.

Senator FERGUSON. When did you get it?

Mr. HUMELSINE. We got it through the newspaper columns.

NEWSPAPER COLUMN OF VICTOR RIESEL

Senator FERGUSON. By the newspaper column written by Victor Riesel?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. I ask that that be made a part of the record. Chairman McKELLAR. Without objection, that will be done. (The newspaper article referred to is as follows:)

INSIDE LABOR

(By Victor Riesel)

This time, among other things, it is the truth which is perverted in Dean Acheson's State Department.

A few days ago, one of Mr. Acheson's deputies publicly issued a letter in which he took 5,000 words to call an important American labor leader a liar. It will now take far less than that to prove conclusively that the State Department's spokesman mangled the truth.

This is all vital to every mother's son eligible to defend our country, for it reveals the weird methods used by the State Department officials to protect their agency-a division upon which rests the fate of this Nation in global power politics.

It pivots upon an international incident provoked when the AFL longshoremen's union leader, Joseph P. Ryan, told this columnist that he had had to ask a State Department representative to leave his office some time ago because he felt she had urged him to urge his men not to load munitions aboard ships for our European allies.

The detailed story and quotes in this column immediately caused wide protests across country and congressmen took these indignant objections straight to the State Department. On May 25, Deputy Under Secretary of State Carlisle H. Humelsine wrote a 5,000-word letter to one of these Congressmen, saying, in an aggrieved tone, that the State Department couldn't understand my motives, nor those of Mr. Ryan. Humelsine added that there was "no basis" for these allegations and that the State Department had "thoroughly investigated" the charges and was dismissing the story with "complete satisfaction."

Now see what happened! Faced with serious charges against one of its important officials, an assistant labor attaché in our Indian embassy, a crucial headquarters indeed, the State Department asks her what happened, takes her word for it and dismisses it all. Then it insults the labor leader who made the charges and the newsmen who printed them.

But, not once did any State Department official contact this column. Not once did a State Department official talk to Joseph P. Ryan, despite the fact that it was he to whom the State Department representative allegedly made these suggestions.

Is this what the State Department calls "thoroughly investigated"? There were two people in a room, Ryan and the woman involved. Yet the State Department doesn't bother even to telephone Ryan to ask what he had to say!

Had the State Department bothered to question the man who brought these serious charges, Joe Ryan would have shown them a letter he wrote a few days after the conversations. That note was to Secretary of Labor Maurice Tobin and it said, in part:

"When she arrived at my office she carried credentials from the Department of Labor and the State Department, under the name of Edith Cameron Wall, and I proceeded with the interview. She questioned me regarding many matters concerning the water front and I answered her courteously, until she made the statement that when she returned to France, the longshoremen and seamen would question her as to the attitude of the marine men in America-as to whether or not they would cooperate with them on the strike (by calling a sympathy strike in United States ports--Ed. Note, V. R.) and same (French strike-V. R.) was for the betterment of wages and working conditions (on French waterfrontV. R.) and if they could not get any encouragement, that the Communist Party would gain many new recruits from among the men (on the French water front-V. R.)

I told her that the position of our organization was that we would load and discharge all cargo to any country until such time as the State Department advised us not to do so.

Then Ryan showed her out. The State Department's recent reply to all this is that perhaps Miss Wall asked some "tactless questions" but why all the excitement?

And then the Deputy Under Secretary states, amid his 5,000 words, that since his aide, Miss Wall, had seen 11 other union chiefs, "the Department has made a point of again asking certain of these union officials whether anything Miss Wall said in her conversations with them" would corroborate Mr. Ryan's charges in this column. Bluntly, either the labor leaders lie and I don't think they would to me, for virtually all of them are my close friends-or the Deputy UnderSecretary has been deceived by his investigators. I contacted the offices of 10 of the 11 and these is no record of any such inquiry by the State Department. Miss Wall is not the issue. Even if her questions were merely "tactless," she definitely left the impression with loaders of oceangoing ships that she thought than an American water front strike, in sympathy with the French Lefties. would be helpful. Ryan waited a long time for action. He got none. So he made it all public. Suppose it weren't Miss Wall. Suppose it were some others from the Far Eastern Division.

This is what they call a "thorough" probe!

(Copyright 51, Post-Hall Syndicate, Inc.)

Senator FERGUSON. That was May of what year?
Mr. HUMELSINE. That was 14 months ago.

Senator FERGUSON. But in fact, you did not get this until after you wrote the Walter letter?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Oh, yes, I did.

Senator FERGUSON. This indicates that the Walter letter was written.

Mr. HUMELSINE. That is probably the second column on it, then. I am referring to the original column on it.

Senator FERGUSON. Now, what day-do you have the original column?

Mr. HUMELSINE. The original one was May 14, 1951.
Senator FERGUSON. The original column?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes.

Senator FERGUSON. And this column is a much later column? Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes. It is the original column I am talking about. Senator FERGUSON. You did not figure that this was a security case? Mr. HUMELSINE. Sure, it was a security case. What I mean is that if there was any charge of something wrong, we look into it from the security angle, and as a result of that you go through the files. Senator FERGUSON. Did you take this to be a claim that she was sympathetic with the Communists?

Mr. HUMELSINE. No.

Senator FERGUSON. But the charge would?

COMPLETE CHECK ON BACKGROUND OF MISS WALL

Mr. HUMELSINE. On the basis of what Mr. Ryan says here, you would, if what he says were true. But we have taken this young lady here, and we have gotten a complete file on her from the time she was born. We have gone to every employer that ever employed her. She has an outstanding record in the Northwestern University. She is a Phi Beta Kappa. We went to all of the business concerns that she ever worked for, and talked to her bosses. We went right straight through to everyone that had ever had any dealings with her, and we talked to the ambassadors under whom she had worked. Senator FERGUSON. The surprising thing is that you talked to everyone of them but you didn't talk to Ryan.

Mr. HUMELSINE. Dr. Steelman carried on the exchange with Ryan, and evidently Ryan was satisfied 14 months ago.

Senator FERGUSON. Did you put the Ryan statement in your report? Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Did you put in what this man said?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. And you find it is not true?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir. Had we thought there was any basis in fact for Ryan's statement, she would have been discharged immediately.

MARY JANE KEENEY

Senator FERGUSON. I would like to ask you a few questions with relation to Mary Jane Keeney.

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. When did you first get acquainted with her case?

Mr. HUMELSINE. I have never been acquainted with her case, Senator, because she left the Department, I think, before I came there. Senator FERGUSON. She was an employee prior to 1946?

Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir. She was employed by the Department of State for a short period of time and then resigned.

Senator FERGUSON. And then she got a job with the United Nations? Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir. I understand that is true, although we had nothing to do with that and we never furnished a letter of recommendation. In fact, we were not consulted then, and we are not consulted on people who are employed by the United Nations.

Senator FERGUSON. You mean that when a person has been employed by the State Department of the United States and then wants to transfer to the United Nations, you have nothing to do with it? Mr. HUMELSINE. No, sir; we do not have a thing to do with that. Senator FERGUSON. You are not even consulted as to whether or not they are loyal?

Mr. HUMELSINE. No, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. What job did she get in the United Nations? Mr. HUMELSINE. I do not know that specifically, but I believe it was some minor clerical job in the United Nations.

Senator FERGUSON. Can you tell me what it was and who she was working for in the United Nations?

Mr. BOYKIN. I have that.

EDITORIAL CLERK FOR UN

Mr. HUMELSINE. Mrs. Mary Jane Keeney was employed by the United Nations on June 28, 1948, her duties consisting of examining documents presented for reproduction into printing and the reviewing of materials as to style, terminology, and conformity with United Nations editorial rules. She was an editorial clerk evidently for the United Nations.

Senator FERGUSON. She was an editorial clerk for the United Nations? Mr. HUMELSINE. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you know what caused her to quit the Department of State?

HISTORY OF EMPLOYMENT

Mr. HUMELSINE. She resigned. Prior to November 1945, Mrs. Mary Jane Keeney was employed by the Foreign Economic Administration. In November 1945, when the Foreign Economic Administration was transferred to the State Department by Executive order, Mrs. Keeney was on detail from the Foreign Economic Administration to the Allied Control Commission staff on reparations in Europe. On March 9, 1946, she returned from Europe to the United States and due to her reemployment rights, resumed her position in the Foreign Economic Administration, which had then been absorbed by the Department of State.

On June 21, 1946, Mrs. Keeney went on sick leave, and on June 28, 1946, she submitted a letter of resignation, to be effective July 15, 1946. Thus Mrs. Keeney was employed by the Department in Washington only from March 9 until June 21, 1946.