Mr. Fain. Yes, sir; if he would have met the qualifications we considered that he had been a security risk, and had a potential for any violence or dangerousness, why, we certainly would have stayed on him.
Mr. Dulles. And you would not have marked the report as closed, the case as closed.
Mr. Fain. Well, I closed it because my investigation was completed. The assignment was to interview him and the case at the end of the interview with the information we obtained the case was closed. The man had found a job, he was working, he was living in this duplex with his wife, and he was not a member of the Communist Party. Of course, it was true he had been to Russia. He denied any contacts with a Soviet intelligence agent. He denied that he had any contacts. We considered all the facts and circumstances and closed the case, and that is what I did.
Mr. McCloy. If you had not come to that, would you have put in another lead for another interview?
Mr. Fain. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCloy. Would it have been incumbent upon you to recommend to your superiors that he be continued under surveillance?
Mr. Fain. I could have recommended that he be reinterviewed but I frankly didn't see any point in doing that.
Mr. McCloy. I understand that. But assuming you did find some derogatory information, or some facts that made you fear that he was a security risk beyond a recommendation for further interviews, what would be your province to do? Would it be your province to recommend surveillance?
Mr. Fain. Yes, sir; if there had been some facts there to indicate that he was——
Mr. McCloy. A potential danger?