Senator Lodge. No evidence showing they got back to some enemj^,
or Conimnnist or anything?
Mr. BiELASKi. Only the fact that they were — Jaffe was in freqnent
contact with the Russian consulate in New York, and you can guess
there. I am told by the FBI agents they didn't see him carry any
documents in his hands while they had him under surveillance. That
"wasn't necessary.
Senator Lodge. Under what authority did you conduct the raid
on the Amerasia office, in the first place?
Mr. BiELASKi. I didn't ask for authority at the moment, Sena-
tor; but, since I have thought of the legal position, and I understand
that the OSS was created by Executive order and that when it was
created the orderprovided that it should take care of its own security,
which means security from within and without, and proceeding on
that basis as a Government agent, following something that had been
stolen, I thought I had a right to go after it and bring it back.
Senator Lod ;e. Did you realize that in wars in the past the normal
safeguards of search and seizure and habeas corpus had been sus-
pended and probably in this war it would be all right to suspend
them in the security of the country, if the security was involved? Did
you realize that?
Mr. BiELASKi. I realized we were at war, someone had stolen valu-
able secret documents from us, and I had to try to ijo get them, and
I did.
Senator Lodge. You don't think therefore that the failure to prose-
cute the theft of these documents could soundly be based on the con-
stitutional prohibition against search and seizure, because of the fact
that there was a war, is that right ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I certainly think so, but I am not a lawyer.
Senator Lodge. I'm not a lawyer either.
Senator Tydings. You cannot set aside the Constitution in time of
war.
Senator Lodge. I think they did it in time of war — he did it and
got away wdtli it and saved the country
Senator Tydings. I am in favor of it, but I don't know how we can
do it.
Senator Lodge. I can understand how a patriotic man like Mr.
Bielaski would feel about a thing like that, and in fact, my thinking
was proper, and I would have done it myself.
Senator McMaiion. I agree that you did the right thing in going
there, but amendment IV of the Constitution says:
The right of people to be secure in their person, houses, and papers and effects
against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. No warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly-
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
That is amendment IV of the Bill of Rights.
Senator Lodge. Of course, my friend from Connecticut knows that
if that had been followed, it would be impossible to protect ourselves.
Senator McMahon. There are two different things there : getting it
and the ability to use the evidence in court to convict them. They are
different things.
Senator Tydings. What could have been done, if you will allow me
to interrupt, would have been to have had, as a result of Mr. Bielaski
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 945
or anyone else's iiivesti<;ation, an affidavit made out. a searcli warrant
<rotten, tlie place then entered and searched and the evidence wonld be
admissible in any court, beyond question.
Isn't that correct ?
^Fi-. BiELASKi. I felt the FBI had plenty of evidence without mine,
and they so felt too. They felt they had this case tied up.
Senator ]\IcMaiiox. Api)arently, from what you said, we will have
to question them.
I practically took notes of what you said about Larsen questionino;
O'Connor, and O'Connor wasn't around when Larsen wanted to talk
to him ; but there was something about having irone into his apartment.
Mr. BiFXASKi. That is true, but I think that as a matter of policy
with the FBI, I think they wei'e justified.
Senator Trnixos. That was a bad slip.
Senator McMaiiox. Let's get this straight. This is now up against
the legal proposition, in other words, the question of whether or not
3"ou can use evidence that is illegally obtained.
Mr. BiKLASKi. You can't use it
Senator ^IcMaiiox. And, of course, there can be no doubt about
that. I mean, you couldn't sustain, cannot sustain any conviction
based upon evidence that was obtained or seized contrary to the Con-
stitution. Xo President or anybody else has got a right to suspend the
Constitution.
Mr. Bielaski. I noticed when you read that, that it says, "they shall
be secure in their property and their papers." It doesn't say that they
should be secure in Government property and papers they have stolen.
Senator ^IcMaiiox. Well, I will tell you, the question is — it is the
premises, yon see. that are sacred. "What I am trying to do is tell you
what the law is.
Mr. Bielaski. Frankly, Senator, if I had known the law I wouldn't
have stopped.
Senator Mc]NL\hox'. Xeither would I. I'm trying to explain to you,
out of your story, this is all I know about it, the thing that hit me right
away is. here is this bale of evidence but unfortunately it would not be
admissible on the basis of your story.
Senator Lodge. Let me ask you this : One possible explanatioii of
why these men were not indicted and found guilty, and everything,
is the legal explanation you give, but it is by no means the only possible
explanation, and you knoAv that as well as I do; and the Constitution
has been set aside by Presidents
Senator McMahox. Xo.
Senator Lodge. President Lincoln set it aside.
Senator ]M('i\LvHoisr. He suspended tlie writ of habeas corpus, and as
a matter of fact, no President of the United States can set aside the
Constitution.
Please take that on my word.
Sanator Lodge. I know what Lincoln did in the Civil War.
Senator Tvdixgs. You can do it, but not legally.
Senator Lodge. I don't say it was legally, maybe one reason why
the court didn't follow through on that — it may be, it is true that the
reason they didn't indict and punish these men. as they should have
done, is because of the legal aspect : but, there also may have been
other reasons and it seems that the connnittee ought to go into the
other reasons.
946 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. That may be premature. I seem to remem-
ber
Senator Tydings. Do not let us go into that.
Mr. BiELASKi. There are reasons, I don't know what they are. I
know the Federal IJureau of Investigation men who worked on this
felt that they had gotten the most severe kick in the face the dejDart-
ment had ever gotten. They feel that way today.
Senator Tydings. Well, we will find out.
Mr. BiELASKi. I would like to give you the name of the men who
wrote all the FBI reports on tlie case.
Senator Tydings. Would you like to ask some questions ?
Senator Green. Did you come to the conclusion, from this little
printing establishment, that apparently far greater than was neces-
sary for bringing out this magazine, that the main purpose was for
other than publishing the magazine ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir; very definitely.
Senator Green. None of tliis material ajiparently was ever used by
the magazine.
Mr. BiELASKi. I am certain. That was my immediate impression.
There were so many things there that could not possibly be explained
by the operation of this little magazine.
Senator Green. You said something about discussing this matter
with some people at a luncheon the other day.
Mr. BiELASKi. My three agents who were with me.
Senator Green. Discussing what you were going to testify here
today ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes. sir. I wanted to find out, not what I was going
to testify here today, but wanted to find out if my recollection was
accurate in some respects.
Senator Green. Refreshing your recollection?
Mr. BiELASKi. That is right, and on one or two points which we
don't agree on, one man may say he saw an item in the library, but I
might think he saw it in Jaffe's office, but they are minor details that,
after 5 years, you may expect.
Senator Green. The reason I ask is, I think we ought to straighten
it out. In your capacity as an agent of the Office of Strategic Serv-
ices, and as a Govermnent official during Avartime, didn't you take an
oath of keeping all the information secret?
Mr. Bielaski. No, sir.
Senator Green. You didn't ?
Mr. Bielaski. No, sir ; and I have the permission of General Dono-
van to testify before this committee, and disclose such facts as I have.
Senator Green. That is what I wanted to clear up.
Mr. Bielaski. I have, and I asked his permission. I have gotten it,
and he says if you wish to see him, he will come down here and verify
it, and he can testify to the seriousness of the evidence that I turned
over to the OSS.
Senator Green. Noav, did you turn over, simply to the OSS, or give
any of this information to the grand jury ?
Mr. Bielaski. No, sir; I was never before the grand jury. There
were reasons for that. I Mas under cover in the organization, and I
don't think they wanted to expose me.
Senator Green. "\Yliat did you say the name of your organization
was?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESR^ESTIGATION 947
Mr. BiELASKi. In New York?
Seniitor Green. Yes.
Mr. BiELASKi. Research and Security Corporation.
Senator Green. Have you ever had another name for it ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Green. I know Mr. Biehuski, know his family, and know his
forebears.
1 wanted to be sure there couhl be no question.
Mr. BiELASKi. It was orfjanized 2 years ago. If you want to know
my directors, one was formerly Assistant Chief of tlie Federal Bureau
of Investigation. One of them was Mr. van Beuren, who was security
officer of the OSS. One was former chief of the British Intelligence
m Russia, Mr. McPherson- — all men of experience.
Senator Green. How many operators have you?
Mr. BiELASKi. Well
Senator McMahon. May I interrupt a moment?
It is 1 o'clock and I have a luncheon engagement. I have a few
questions I want to ask Mr. Bielaski. I think if Senator Green will
defer
Senator Green. My question will be brief, and I also have a lunch-
eon engagement.
Senator McMahon. I suggest we adjourn for lunch and then come
back. I think we are entitled to make our luncheon engagements.
Senator Green. I made one that I just dismissed.
Senator IMcIMahon. I'm not asking you not to meet your engage-
ment. I'm asking the committee to recess for lunch.
Senator Tydings. Well, we will meet again at 2 : 30 this afternoon.
(Thereupon, at 1:05 p. m., the connnittee stood in recess until
2 : 30 p. m. that same afternoon.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Tydings. All right, on the record.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. Mr. Bielaski, as a result of your investigation at the
time of your disclosures, did you know of any tie-in between the
Amerasia office and the office of the Institute of Pacific Relations?
]Mr. Bielaski. I have testified that there was a close interlocking
among the personnel in the upper level. I cannot say the directors,
because they were not directors, but persons of that status — yes. I
handed the committee a paper here which conveys all of my notations
on that subject.
Mr. Morris. I didn't realize that.
Senator Tydings. He handed them in, and he also said that there
were some people that were interlocking and also some people that
seemed to be ])retty respectable, a combination of both sides.
Mr. ]\roRRis. I must have been absent.
Mr. BiEKvsKL I turned the paper over to him (indicating).
Senator Tydings. Do you have any questions. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. In the material you found at the Amerasia office,
was there anything you found dealing with atomic energy?
Mr, Bielaski. There was nothing I recall. There was, on one
secret document that I saw in the Hersey envelope something which
referred to the A bomb, but what it said I do not remember.
948 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. Then, tliere was something about the atomic bomb.
Mr. BiELASKi. The A bomb. The word ''atomic" was not there.
It was referred to as an A bomb, in quotes, and at tlie time it meant
absohitely nothing to me because I had never heard of an atomic
or an A bomb, and it wasn't until months later that the significance of
that particular document finall}'^ penetrated.
Senator Lodge. Did you have in mind the fact that in war, arrange-
ments are sometnnes made so that secret documents are stolen on pur-
])ose, in order to mislead the enemy? You have heard of that being
done, have you not ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I have heard of nearly all of the tricks in the busi-
ness.
Senator Lodge. But, you do not think that that situation could
liave ap])lied to the 400 secret documents in the Amerasia office?
Mr. BiELASKi. Would you please explain that again?
Senator Lodge. You don't think that the situation described could
have applied to the documents in the Amerasia office?
Mr. BiELASKi. Explain that again, that situation.
Senator Lodge. I was going to put it to you, that in war there arg
occasions when a nation will make possible for one of its secret docu-
ments to be stolen, so that the enemy may be mislead.
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh no. It never occurred to me that that was rhe
case here, and I don't think it was. That is dealing with double-
agents, passing out some information in the hope of getting a greater
return.
Senator Lodge. That isn't quite what I mean, in the hope of get-
ting something in return — but in the hope of misleading the enemy,
making them think you are going to do something you are not going
to do.
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't think it applied in this case, Senator — not
at all ; certainly not according to my experience.
Senator Lodge. You think the documents were too numerous?
Mr. BiELASKi. Too numerous, yes.
Senator Lodge. And too genuine?
Mr. BiELASKi. And, too serious. I think these were taken mali-
ciously. What became of them I don't know.
Senator Lodge. You don't know where they are now?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't know.
Senator Lodge. Has the FBI got them?
Mr. BiELASKi. Those documents I saw?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir. I think they went back to the State Dei^art-
ment, were delivered there; and the documents the FBI got were an
entirely different lot.
Senator Lodge. So, these 400 documents that were in the Amerasia
office can now no longer be identified ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No ; they can't ; not at all.
Senator Lodge. You brought them back into the pool ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes ; back into the
Senator Lodge. Who is resonsible for making that decision?
Mr. BiELASKi. Well, those documents were never lifted. I left
them there. I took from 12 to 14. The rest were left there and in the
normal course of the operation, that they were conducting, they were
taken back after, presumably, they had been copied or photostated.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 949
Senator Lodge. I don't make myself clear. You were in there that
nio:!it and found 400 documents; is that right?
Ml-. liiELASKi. That is right.
Senator Loixje. Not copies, originals.
Mr. BiEL.\SKi. That is right.
Senator LonciK. All riglit. What T ^vant to know is what happened
to those 400 documents?
Mr. BiELASKi. They were taken hy Jaffe back to Washington and
presumably delivered back to the State Department. I don't know
that
Senator Lodge. By Jatfe?
Mr. BiELASKi. That is just my guess.
Senator Lodge. I thought you said the FBI went there, and put 75
men on the thing and tapped the telephones and set up surveillance
and tied up the whole case in a knot ?
Mr. BiELASKi. But, that was 3 months before the FBI did that. The
FBI, when they did that, that Avas 5 or fi days after we had been there
and they found no documents; and for that reason, they thought that
we had spilled the beans by taking 14 of them. They thought that
Jafie and his crowd had become aware of it, but that turned out to
be not the case. It was simply a period where documents had come
in, been photostated and gone back, and another lot was coming, be-
cause the FBI did get the next lot that came in.
Senator Lodge. How loiig was it after the time you told General
Donovan about this, that the FBI got on the job?
Mr. BiELASKi. They got there on the job Avithin 5 days, and stayed on
the job for 3 months before they finally smacked down on them.
Senator Lodge. When they smacked down on them, did they find no
documents stolen?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir; but that was probably the third lot they
smacked down on. It ran into hundrecls. I think there were 467
documents they got out of Jaffe's office.
Senator Lodge. WHiat did they do with those?
Mr. BiELASKi. They still have them, I have been told they have
13 volumes pi evidence up there.
Senator IIodge. I think this committee ought to notify the Depart-
ment of Justice to impound those documents right now.
Senator Tydixgs. Will you do that, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgax. Yes, sir.
Senator Lod(;e. There is no objection to that, I presume, on the part
of the members ?
Senator Tydixgs. No.
Mr. BiELASKi. And, over 200 documents they seized in Larsen's
office.
Senator Lodge. To me. this is terribly serious. I never heard of this
before. I was in the Army when this happened, and if you lost one
document in the Army, if that ha])pened to you, you ought to shoot
yourself. A thing like this, of 400 major documents
Senator Tydixtjs. Off the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
. Mr. BiELASKi. Of my knowledge, the total number of documents
involved exceeds a thousand — there is. 400 that we saw, and I think
the FBI seized 407 in Jaffe's office later.
Senator Lodge. Different ones.
950 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BiELASKi. Different ones, and 280 some that they seized in
Larsen's apartment, here in Washington.
Senator Lodge. What happened to them ?
Mr. BiELASKi. The Department of Justice has them.
Senator Lodge, Still has them ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. So, they have not been returned ?
Mr. BiELASKi. And probably they photostated other documents that
came in between what we saw and what they seized.
Senator Lodge. Of the people that were implicated in this, do I
understand you to say that only one is now still in the service of
the State Department, and that is Mr. Service ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir, because there were only two implicated,
Larsen and Service ; and, Service is the one that is still there.
Senator Lodge. What happened to Larsen, do you know ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Larsen was fined $500.
Senator Lodge, Did he get out of the State Department?
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh, yes ; he got out of the State Department.
Senator Tydings. He is out.
Senator Lodge, Under what circumstances did he get out ?
Senator Tydings. He was fined and dismissed.
Senator Lodge. They dismissed him ?
Senator Tydings. That is my understanding.
Mr. BiELASKi. I know he applied for a job and was going to be
taken on, in another Government department, and I heard about it
and saw that he didn't get the job.
Senator Lodge. That is an explanation I can understand.
I would like to have somebody give me an explanation of why
Service was retained.
Senator Tydings. We will get that, I think, in time.
Senator Lodge, That is all, for the moment.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green ?
Senator Green. This morning, I asked you w^hat the name of the
agency was, what was your reply ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Research and Security Corporation.
Senator Green, And I asked you if you had ever had another name
and you said "No."
Mr, BiELASKi. No, sir, never had another name. This was organized
after the war.
Senator Green. Was it the successor of another agency ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator (treen. What w\as the Seaboard Bureau of Public Rela-
tions ? That was the name of your agency at one time ?
Mr, BiELASKi, That was a company in which I was interested some
11 years ago, yes, sir.
Senator Green. That was your agency, the same as the present one
is? _ .
Mr, BiELASKi, Yes, sir; probably more than the present one is. The
present one is a stock corporation.
Senator Green. In the interval between the two — did they exist at
the same time ?
Mr. l^iELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Green. One succeeded the other, is that the truth ?
Mr, BiELASKi. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 951
Senator Green. ITow lono- an interval was there between them?
Mr. BiKLASKi. An interval of the war, 5 or (j years.
Senator (tkeen. AVhich war ?
Mr. BiELASKi. The last war ; and, an additional year where I stayed
with tlie War Department an extra year.
Senator (Jheex. When did the Seaboard Bureau of Public Relations
go out of existence ?
Mr. BiELASKi. 1939 or 1940, I think. I am not sure of which year
it was.
Senator Green. Why did it go out of existence ?
JVIr. BiELASKi. Because I got disgusted with the business of investi-
gating and swore I would never investigate any more. That is a
simple answer to it.
Senator Green. Then, you were interested enough to take it up
again?
Mr. BiELASKi. I couldn't help it. General Donovan sent Colonel
Harrington to me, and I was just persuaded to do it. I don't like it
now.
Senator Green. When was the agency formed; the new agency?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't call it an agency. It has a license to investi-
gate, but it is in the business of investigating. Practically all my men
are former FBI men, and lawyers.
Senator (treen. When was that? Is it a corporation?
Mr. BiELASKi. It is a corporation under the laws of the State of New
York.
Senator Green. When was it incorporated?
Mr. BiELASKi. Two years ago.
Senator Green. Did it do any business before it was incorporated ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Xo, sir.
Senator Green. I think that is clear.
You think the other one went out of existence about 1939 or '40,
von don't remember which.
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't. It was either late '39 or early '40.
Senator Green. When you testified, you testified here before in
Washington on Government investigations, did you not?
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh, yes.
Senator (jreen. Was it at that time the Seaboard
]SIr. BiELASKi. "V\1iich testimony do you refer to, testimony before
the Senate committee ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. BiELASKi. It was the Seaboard Bureau of Public Relations at
that time, that I was interested in — yes, sir.
Senator Green. And it was wound up shortly after that?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Thank you.
Senator Ttdings. Senator McMahon, do you want to ask some
questions?
Senator McMahon. ISIr. Bielaski, on this paper in which there was
written "A-bomb," do you recollect anything beside just the title?
Mr. Bielaski. I don't recollect what was in the body of the docu-
ment; no.
Senator McMahon. It wasn't a legal document?
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 61
952 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BiELASKi, No; it was not. It was about, as I say — it was on
newspaper reporting paper, the kind of stuff that he writes on, this
rough, white stuff which was about that wide, and it was only about
that long [indicating] ; and, as I recall it, all six of these documents
were single spaced, so that it would be, you could get it in that much
single spacing.
Senator McMahon. They were in Hersey's envelope ?
Mr. BiELASKi. In Hersey s envelope, not in a bunch, but the six were
slipj^ed in between these other documents. If we hadn't looked care-
fully, they wouldn't have found them.
Senator McMaiion. Did they all relate to the bombs ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I can't say that. I know one of them related to the
disposition of the Japanese battle fleet, but as I recall, Senator, all of
them related to battles, battle intelligence, and was not diplomatic
material or anything of that sort. It was combat material, and my
impression of that was not distinct at all, all the details are hazy.
Senator McMaiion. Do you remember whether there was a time
stamp of the State Department on that one?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't knoAv, don't think so.
Senator McMahon. Was there any identification of what depart-
r^ent it had come from?
Mr. BiELASKi. There was no indication on any of those six docu-
ments as to where they came from ; although I have the impression,
based on nothing except my recollection, that they w^ere all concerned
with the Navy or Navy intelligence. I may be mistaken about that.,.
Senator McMahon. Were they among the ones that you brought
down ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I didn't dare touch those, because I thought they
would be surely missed, if I took them, and there was such a mass
of material.
Senator McMaiion. When you had your conversation the other day
with your men who were working on it, is that one of the things you