632
PARTISAN REVIEW
bert, among many other earlier associations, was recalled to him
in
his
joint research into
his
Communist past with his wife. All
married people have had
this
experience.
There remain, then, the charge in the Seaborg matter and the
charge in the matter of Dr. Peters. Of all the charges on which the
Commission rests its case, the worst-founded, it seems to me, is the
charge that Dr. Oppenheimer is not a trustworthy character because
he said that the recommendations of the meeting of the General
Advisory Committee in October 1949 were "surprisingly unanimous"
and that he did not know the opinion of the one absent member,
Dr. Seaborg, whereas Dr. Seaborg had communicated his mildly dis–
senting opinion in advance of the meeting. There were nine members
of the Committee, eight of whom were present and agreed. Who that
has ever worked in committee would not call this surprising unanim–
ity?
As
for Dr. Seaborg's letter, stating his position on the H-bomb,
this was produced from Dr. Oppenheimer's own files. Obviously,
Dr. Oppenheimer could not have had any conscious intention of sup–
pressing Dr. Seaborg's disagreement unless he remembered this letter
which communicated Dr. Seaborg's views; and if he remembered it,
nothing would have been easier than to destroy it. This explanation
does not of course cover Dr. Oppenheimer's failure to include Dr.
Seaborg's view in the report of the meeting which was given the
Commission. In submitting, as he did, a majority and minority ex–
pression of the sentiments of the Committee without mentioning Dr.
Seaborg's communication, Dr. Oppenheimer did, I suppose, fall
short of his whole duty as Chairman. Perhaps this was purposeful,
perhaps it was only careless, but whichever, the omission is fairly
judged only in the light of Dr. Seaborg's own lack of firm conviction
in the controversy, as revealed in his weak communication and by the
fact that in the next meeting of the Committee Dr. Seaborg said
he would prefer not to express his views.
In the Peters matter the Commission charges that Dr. Oppen–
heimer testified in one fashion about the Communist activities of
Dr. Peters before a closed session of Congressional Committee and
then in effect contradicted himself in a letter to a Rochester news–
paper which had reported his testimony. Dr. Oppenheimer acknowl–
edges that he made this shift; he tells us he wrote the letter because
various people accused him of having been unfair to Peters and be-
