¹ Canada, Civil Service Act, 1961, Schedule B: Oath of Office and Secrecy (9–10 Eliz. II, chap. 57); italics mine.

² Canada, Royal Commission on Government Organization, Report (1962), vol. 3, 71.Google Scholar

³ Quoted in Scanlon, T. Joseph, “Promoting the Government of Canada; A Study of the Information, Explanation and Promotional Activities of the Federal Government Departments” (MA thesis, Queen's University, 1964), 100 Google Scholar; italics mine. This thesis contains very interesting material on the publicity-propaganda problem. So does, to a lesser extent, Seymour-Ure, Colin, “An Inquiry into the Position and Workings of the Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa” (MA thesis, Carleton University, 1962), chaps, vi–x.Google Scholar

⁴ Scanlon, “Promoting the Government”; italics mine.

⁵ Ibid.; chaps. VIII, VI.

⁶ The Torment of Secrecy: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies (Glencoe, 1956), 50–1.Google Scholar

⁷ “It is remarkable,” says Professor Devons, “how easy it is, if you move in the right circles and have the right contacts, to find out what is going on. … Should you turn nasty and attack the hand that feeds you, however, your sources of information will soon dry up.” See “Government on the Inner Circle,” Listener (27 03, 1958)Google Scholar, reprinted in International Review of Administrative Sciences, 24 (1958), 526.Google Scholar

⁸ From his experience as a parliamentary reporter, Wilfrid Eggleston recalls that “a reporter may become so privy to confidential matter circulating within the inner circles of government that his lips tend to become sealed”; “Leaves from a Pressman's Log,” Queen't Quarterly, 63, 563.Google Scholar It would be interesting to know for how long reporters knew about Mackenzie King's spiritualism before it was finally revealed.

⁹ Perry, Clive, “Legislatures and Secrecy,” 67 Harvard Law Review (1954), 770.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid., 771–2.

¹¹ See, for example, Street, Harry, “State Secrets–A Comparative Study,” 14 Modern Law Review (1951), 121–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² But it has not been interpreted in quite so extreme a way. See Johnston, J. G., “Crown Privilege,” 19 University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review (1961), 181–4Google Scholar, or Willis, John, “Administrative Law–Discovery,” Canadian Bar Review (1955), 352–56.Google Scholar Jamieson, D. P., “Proceedings By and Against the Crown in Canada,” 26 Canadian Bar Review (1948), 373–86Google Scholar, notes that, while the production of official documents is not permitted in some provinces, the rules of the Exchequer Court provide that it may order production by any officer of the Crown and examine him orally.

¹³ “Crown Privilege: Open the Files,” Economist, 210 (02 8, 1964), 490.Google Scholar

¹⁴ “Keeping it Dark,” Encounter, 13 (08 1959), 40–1.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibid., 42.

¹⁶ Ibid., 45.

¹⁷ One of the lengthiest and most thoughtful pieces is Baldwin's, Hanson W. “Managed News: Our Peacetime Censorship,” Atlantic Monthly, 211 (1963), 53–9.Google Scholar The famous U-2 incident of 1960 was particularly disturbing. President Eisenhower felt that in the interests of national security he had to he to the American people and to the world, despite the fact that during his election campaign he had said: “We must take the people into our confidence and thereby restore their confidence in government. We will keep the people informed because an informed people is the keystone in the arch of free government.” Quoted in Koenig's, Louis W. review of Molenhoff's Washington Cover-Up, in Saturday Review, 45 (09 29, 1962), 26.Google Scholar In defending the administration's management of the news during the Cuban crisis of 1962, Arthur Sylvester, Assistant Secretary of Defence, revealed the magnitude of the modern secrecy problem when he stated flatly that “the inherent right of the Government to lie to save itself when faced with nuclear disaster is basic.” Wiggins, J. R., Freedom or Secrecy (New York, 1964), 235.Google Scholar

¹⁸ There is a vast literature on this subject, particularly for the years 1956–60, mainly complaining about, analysing, and recommending improvements in, loyalty and security screening. The best full-length treatment is: Brown, Ralph S. Jr., Loyalty and Security: Employment Tests in the United States (New Haven, 1958).Google Scholar The best books on the public's access to official information are: Rourke, Francis E., Secrecy or Publicity: Dilemmas of Democracy (Baltimore, 1961)Google Scholar; Wiggins, James Russell, Freedom or Secrecy, rev. ed. (New York, 1964)Google Scholar, a more strident treatment by a newspaperman; and a study of the legal position by Cross, Harold L., The People's Right to Know (New York, 1953).Google Scholar Some representative periodical literature from the mid-fifties on loyalty and security is contained in Annals, 300 (1955)Google Scholar and Current History, 29 (10 1955).Google Scholar The security screening system is still far too comprehensive in that it is not restricted to sensitive jobs only; see Joelson, M. R., “The Dismissal of Civil Servants in the Interests of National Security,” Public Law (spring, 1963), 51–75 Google Scholar, which compares Britain, France, and the US.

¹⁹ “Security and the News,” Public Administration Review, 12 (1952)Google Scholar, reprinted in Rowat, , Basic Issues in Public Administration (New York, 1961), 404.Google Scholar

²⁰ Elmer Davis tells an interesting story to illustrate this point: “When I first came into the government … I found a lot or documents ready for my signature. … One of them, to my surprise and alarm, was a threat of invoking the Espionage Act against a respectable publisher who had obtained and published a “secret” document. … I took a look at the document in question. It was something that deserved to be classified no higher than ‘restricted’. … But to call it ‘secret’ was absurd, and to threaten a man with prosecution would have ended the career of our agency very rapidly if it ever had been done.” Ibid., 405.

²¹ The second group steps down from one degree of secrecy to another only every twelve years; the third group are extremely sensitive documents, to be downgraded on an individual basis; and the fourth group contains information over which the United States has no jurisdiction. A House subcommittee estimated that the new system could save $1 million a year. See US Congress, House, Fourteenth Report by the Committee on Government Operations (Washington, 1963), chap. v.Google Scholar

²² US Commission on Government Security, Report (Washington, 1957)Google Scholar, section on document classification.

²³ See Nicholas, H. G., “Public Records: The Historian, the National Interest and Official Policy,” and Stacey, C. P., “Some Pros and Cons of the Access Problem,” International Journal, 20 (1964–1965), 34–44 at 43, and 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ Quoted in Stacey, ibid., 52.

²⁵ This statute had already been amended in 1958, but not sufficiently. The hearings and reports of committees of the Senate and House on earlier and related bills are numerous and confusing. I have found the best recent sources to be: US Congress, Senate, Report No. 1219, 88th Congress, 2nd Session (in which the Committee on the Judiciary reported favourably on the bul to amend Section 3); and the source given in note 21. The relevant Senate and House bills in this session of Congress are S.1160 (Feb. 17, 1965) and H.R. 5012 (Feb. 17, 1965). The subcommittee hearings on H.R. 5012 were held March 30–April 5; those on S.1160, May 12–14 and June 21. The Senate has also been considering a broader bill, S.1336, which includes the provisions of S.1160.

²⁶ “Press Secrecy in Municipal Governments,” Press Journal, 7 (Nov.-12 1963), 8–16.Google Scholar

²⁷ “The Press Fights for the ‘Right to Know’,” 75 Harvard Law Review (1962), 1219.Google Scholar The figures for the state laws are from “Comparative Digest of Access (Open Meetings, Records) Laws” (Freedom of Information Center, Univ. of Missouri, No. 7, March, 1965), 1.

²⁸ “Publicity of Official Documents in Sweden,” Public Law (spring, 1948), 50–69, at 50.Google Scholar So far as I am aware, this is the only full-length article in English on the Swedish principle of open access. Hence I have had to rely on it almost exclusively. Professor Herlitz has confirmed to me that he knows of no other, although he has of course mentioned the principle in his other writings in English. I have been able to give only some highlights here; the whole article deserves to be read much more widely. He points out that Finland has a similar principle, though not as part of the Constitution.

²⁹ Ibid., 51.

³⁰ Ibid., 53.

³¹ Ibid., 54–5.

³² See Eek, Hilding, “Protection of News Sources by the Constitution,” Scandinavian Studies in Law, 1961 (Stockholm), 11–25.Google Scholar This essay also contains some additional information on access to documents.

³³ Herlitz, , “Publicity of Official Documents,” 56.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid., 55, 58.

³⁵ Bill C-39; first reading, April 8, 1965.

³⁶ “Publicity of Official Documents,” 56.

³⁷ Ibid., 61–3.

³⁸ Discussed in Robson, W. A., The Governors and the Governed (Baton Rouge, 1964), 29–30.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., 31.

⁴⁰ “Publicity of Official Documents,” 56.

⁴¹ “Ministerial Responsibility,” Political Quarterly, 34, 265.Google Scholar

⁴² Great Britain, Security Procedures in the Public Service (Cmnd. 1681, 1962).Google Scholar

⁴³ Management Improvement Circular, T.B. 636933 (March 30, 1965).

⁴⁴ Nicholas, , “Public Records,” 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Report, 1, 493–4, 516, 571–2. Oddly, although the Public Records Committee was created by order in council, it was abolished by Treasury Board minute.

⁴⁶ See Canada, Public Archives, General Records Disposal Schedules of the Government of Canada (Ottawa, 1963).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Report, 1, 516.Google Scholar See also Records Management Survey Committee, Report on the Records of the Public Departments and Agencies in the Government of Canada (1960).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Report, 3, 70.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid., 71.

⁵⁰ Scanlon, “Promoting the Government,” chap. v.

⁵¹ Editors often ask the advice of the Secretary of the Committee regarding individual news items. They need not take the advice, but would then run some risk of prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts. See Security Procedures in the Public Service, 34–42.

⁵² Quoted in Wiggins, , Freedom or Secrecy, vii.Google Scholar