along where the evaluations are being made, if they want, to call
General Bradley, or somebody like that, if they have the committee's
authority to pass on whether this is A-1, or A-2, or A-3, or what-
ever it is — is that your point?

Senator McMahon. That is my point.

Senator Tydings. And that you want also from the Department of
Justice, the indictment, you want the hearings in the House, you want
all matters connected with this investigation that will throw any light
on it or give us any leads to go in any direction that the committee
may deem it wise to go in.

Senator JNIcMahon. That is right.

Senator Tydings. And that, until this is done, we let the matter
stand, unless the committee feels it wants to proceed with it.

Senator McMahon. We will proceed on the basis of the staff's
evaluation.

Senator Lodge. I didn't understand what was meant by the evalua-
tion of information as A-2 and A-3, and so forth.

Senator Tydings. You said you wanted to call in an expert on
military matters, and I was trying to meet your point of view, to call
in some military personnel to pass on and evaluate the documents,
which is perfectly satisfactory to me.

Now, I don't know who they will call, but I think if Mr. Morris and
Mr. Morgan can agree on an umpire, if one is needed, we don't have to
go into those details.

They can get started on that and get it done in a fairly short time.
I would like to get the staff to do more of this kind of work, rather
than the committee, because I understand that some of those files
are — How thick are some of the files ?

Mr. jNIoRGAN. Mr. Mclnerney can tell you, better than I.

Senator Tydings. How thick would these files be — off the record.

(There was discussion off the record.)

Senator McMahon. My point is, that that, however, does not apply
to the Amerasia case.

Senator Tydings. Oh, no.

Senator McMahon. The Amerasia case and the loyalty files are
entirely

Senator Tydings. That dovetails into our suggestion, because if we
can get started on this, we can work up on the Amerasia case through
the staff, the staff can go through that while we are working on the
other. We can't do both at the same time, as a committee.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 993

I wanted to f^et throufjh Avith the open sessions, becanse I felt that I
could work out a solution with the President on this file business.

Senator JNIcINIahox. Senator Lodge, would you be disposed to per-
mit the chairman to announce to the press the procedure that we have
adopted in tlie Amerasia case, if we adopt it?

Senator Lodge. I'm not going to forclose myself from calling Bill
Donovan. I think he is a great fellow, won the Congressional Medal of
Honor, was head of OSS, and I don't think it is at all out of line for
anvbotlv to sufjo-est that he be called.

Senator Tydixgs. Well, let's call him.

Senator Lodge. Let me finish. You asked me a question.

Senator jMcMahon. All right.

Senator Lodge. I don't mind being interrupted.

Senator i\Ic]\LvHox. Go ahead.

Senator Tydixgs. You're not going to be able to go to Europe on the
22d of IVIav, because we're not going to finish up down there on the
22d of May.

Senator Lodge. I can do it when I get back.

Senator Tydix'gs. All five of us have to be there. We can't have a
divided group.

Senator Lodge. How man we all read the same document at the same
time ?

Senator Tydixgs. They will read them to us.

Senator Lodge. We will sit there and have them read them out loud
to us ?

Senator Tydix^gs. That is the only way you can decide the case.

Senator Lodge. I think that is a poor procedure.

Senator Tydixgs. It is the only procedure the President is going to
stand for.

Senator Lodge. I don't have to accept it, verbatim.

Senator Tydix^gs. We don't have to go down there.

Senator Lodge. I will go. I know that we have a government of
checks and balances here.

Senator McMahox. Don't let us get into that.

You missed my point, I'm afraid.

Bill Donovan is a personal friend of mine and I am very fond of
him. and I will be delighted to hear him on anything at any time.
My point is that we should hear Bill Donovan after our staff has made
an evaluation of the case so that we could get a more orderly view of
it. That is the onl}^ point I make.

Senator Lodge. All I was trying to sa^^ was, I was not going to insist,
was not going to be difficult, but, we were going to call Bill Donovan.
That is what I have been trying to say.

Senator Tydixgs. I don't agree with you. I think if you give
such a statement out to the press, you are going to be misrepresented
as throwing the case out the window, particularly by some people
whose name I won't mention. My suggestion is this, that we simply
say we have asked our staff to assemble all of the documents, all of the
jjapers, and all of the procedures and make the most thorough in-
vestigation while we pursue our own investigation and leave it stay at
that.

Senator McMahox. That is all right with me.

Senator Tydixgs. What do you think of that?



994 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Senator Lodge. I think it's all right for the staff to look into that, tell
the staff to do that. I don't want to have the impression go out that
there is any hidden meaning to that, or foreclosing ourselves from
calling any witnesses that we may want to call.

(There was discussion off the record, at the conclusion of which
Senators McMahon and Lodge left the room.)

Mr. MoRGAisr. Mr. Mclnerney, the questions that appear pertinent to
me at this point, and the prior questions by the staff, are, No. 1 — why
was Kate Mitchell not indicted?

Will you state that again, Mr. Mclnerney.

Senator Tydings. You two men go ahead.

(Senator Tydings left the room.)

]\Ir. McInerxey. There was no evidence that Kate Mitchell ever
solicited or received a Government document.

Mr. Morgan. Why was the case against Roth not pursued all the
way?

Mr. McInerney. With respect to Roth, we naturally assumed before
his arrest, that he was supplying ONI documents. However, after his
arrest, and after we had an opportunity to analyze these documents,
we found that there were no ONI documents involved in this case after
September 1944, and that was the date that Larsen left ONI. That
leads us to believe that Roth had never supplied any ONI documents
to Jaffe, anyone else. We had no evidence. We found no docu-
ments on Roth at the time of his arrest or before. We brought him
in the case primarily because, among the effects in Jaffe's office were
found some handwritten notes, I think some of it was on yellow pad
paper, and some of it was on some Statler stationery, and I believe
there was one or two which were written on his typewriter.

The circumstances under which that was copied was something for
us to try to prove. He made no admissions, and we had — Jaffe had
made his agreement through his lawyer, and we also made the same
agreement with Larsen's, that we could examine them as to the com-
plicity of Roth. We were naturally cynical of whatever Jaffe might
give us with respect to Roth, but we did interview him at considerable
length, in December 1945, and while Roth's case was still pending,
and he stated that these documents — and I might interpolate at this
moment, that the documents which were hand-copied and typewritten
were probably the most innocuous of all the documents in the case, they
had to do with speeches in the Indian Assembly, political developments
in India, and things which I believe were in the public domain — and,
he stated, Jaffe stated, that he had obtained those documents, not from
any Government employee, but from some Hindu officials and that he
was under some obligation to return them, and he stated that he was
called, on one occasion, he was at the Statler and the gentleman wanted
the document back and he asked Roth to hand-copy them out, copy
them so he could return them. In other words, his testimony complete-
ly exculpated Roth.

No one else testified, could testify about any document that Roth
ever received, or passed on.

Mr. Morgan. As the responsible prosecuting official in the case, am
I to understand that the case agninst Roth was dropped because you
did not have evidence sufficient to convict him ?

Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 995

Mr. IMoRGAN. I don't think I need difj into this, in view of the
amount of publicity that luis been ^iven, but by way of su^r^estion
on the point, the attorney, one of the attorneys who handled this case
was IMr. Hitchcock, is that correct ?

Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.

Mr. J^IoRGAN. It has been suiijrested that Mr. Hitchcock, following
the handling of this case, became associated with a law firm in Buf-
falo, N. Y., a firm in which the uncle of Kate Mitchell, one of the sub-
jects in this case, was a partner.

I am wondering if you have any facts, Mr. McInerney, that might
enlighten us on Mr. Hitchcock's relationship with this firm in contem-
plation of his connection with the handling of this case?

Mr. McInerney. Mr. Hitchcock, Eobert Hitchcock was the first
assistant United States attorney in Buffalo, N. Y. ; I think beginning
in about 1935, he was largely responsible for the entire operation of
that office, which I think 1 placed in the record before. During the
war, he was brought down to Washington as a special prosecutor of
internal security cases.

At the time of this arrest, he was in Buffalo, having returned to the
office there, as a special assistant to the attorney general.

On June 12, 1945, at the request of General Grove, he wanted some
investigation conducted in Canada with respect to the atomic energy
program, and I, being his liaison man with Justice, and this investi-
gation being in the vicinity of Buffalo, I asked Mr. Hitchcock to meet
me in Xew York to discuss the atomic energy investigation in Canada.
It was not an investigation, it was a special matter.

And, it was at that meeting in New York, on or about June 10,
that I took occasion to ask Mr. Hitchcock if he would handle this
case. He said that he would.

At the conclusion of the case, he returned to the office in Buffalo
and was in the United States attorney's office, and continued there
until the end of 1946.

He was the outstanding Federal prosecutor in Buffalo, and at the
time had more experience as a trial lawyer than anybody else in
town.

This law "firm which you mentioned is Kenefick, Cooke, Mitchell,
Bass & Letchworth, Marine Trust Building, Buffalo, N. Y.

This firm is the largest firm in Buffalo, and represents most of the
big corporations such as Chrysler, General Motors, U. S. Steel, in
the city of Buffalo.

In December 1946, more than a year after the termination of this
case, IMr. Bass, of this law firm, came to see Mr. Hitchcock. Mr. Bass
stated that his firm, representing so many big corporations, was being
inundated with portal-to-portal suits, and they needed immediately a
Federal trial attornej^

Mr. Bass told Mr. Hitchcok that he had made inquiries in Buffalo
as to the best available man, and that it was the consensus of everyone
he spoke to that IMr, Hitchcock was the best trial attorney at Federal
court in Buffalo, and he then offered Mr. Hitchcock employment in
the firm.

]Mr. Hitchcock told Mr. Bass : No. 1, he said, "Mr. Bass, I want you
to know that I am a Democrat," knowing that the law firm was a very
stanch Republican firm. Mr. Bass said, "I know that."



996 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Mr. Hitchcock said, "I want yoii to know, secondly, that I am a
Roman Catholic." He knew that there was no Catholic in the firm.

Mr, Bass said, "I know that."

"No. 3," Mr. Hitchcock said, "I want you to know that I was involved
in the prosecution of the Amerasia case, and one of the persons
involved in that case was Kate Mitchell, who, I believe, is a grand-
daughter of Mr. Mitchell, a member of the firm."

Mr. Bass said that he did not know that.

As a result of those conferences, Mr. Hitchcock was hired and
handled portal-to-portal cases.

Mr. Hitchcock recently asked Mr. Bass whether he had ever in-
formed Mr. Mitchell about Mr. Hitchcock's connections with his
granddaughter's case, Mr. Bass stated that he could not recall that he
had, that he was not on friendly terms with his partner and that
it was unlikely that he had ever mentioned it to him.

Mr. Morgan. For the record, Mr. Mclnerney, how do you know
this ? Is this what Hitchcock told you ?

Mr. McInerney. Yes.

JNIr. Morgan. Another matter I believe that has been bruited about
in the present discussion, is that Mr. Mitchell the father of Kate
Mitchell, proceeded to New York, contacted a Colonel Hartfield,
an attorney in the firm of White & Case, and that Colonel Hartfield
in turn, by reason of his connection in the Department of Justice,
proceeded to Washington and, to put it tersely, worked a fix of this
case.

Do you know anything about such reports, and if so, can you com-
ment on them, one way or the other?

Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. I have seen that report. Mr. Hartfield,
to my knowledge, and I might state for the record that to Mr. Hitch-
cock's knowledge, who was immediately in charge of the case, that
Mr. Hatfield never appeared, and never consulted or ever saw either
Mr. Hitchcock or I or Mr. Anderson, who was assisting Mr. Hitch-
cock. The only conference that I ever attended with the Attorney
General, Attorney General Clarke, Mr. Hartfield never attended.

I might say that, to my knowledge, and to Mr. Hitchcock's knowl-
edge, he never appeared at the Department in connection with this
case.

A member of the firm, Lowell Wadmond, I believe, who was a former
assistant United States attorney, in the southern district of New York,
and who has been the number one trial attorney for White & Case for
a number of years, did appear and did represent Miss Mitchell,
whether as a result of Mr. Mitchell's visit to New York, I do not know.

Mr. Morgan. In the entire case, Mr. McInerney, were you subjected
to pressures from any sources to resolve the case one way or the other ?

Mr. McInerney. No, sir. We never dealt or discussed this case
with anyone except the attorneys who were representing these people —
of record.

Mr. Morgan. The suggestion has been made here of the possibility
of White House pressure. Was there such pressure brought to bear
in the case ?

Mr. McInerney. I never received any indication of White House
pressure, or anyone saying they were calling from the White House.
There was one call, which I did not know of of my personal knowl-



STATE DEPARTiVIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 997

ed^re, and I have learned it only recently, and T was told tliat President
Truman had called an official in the DeparTment and stated that he
did not want any interference or anything to delay the presentation
of this case. He wanted this case pressed.

Mr. Morgan. As the responsible prosecuting official, Mr. Mclnerney,
is it proper to conclude from what you have said, that you had com-
plete freedom of rein in handling this case, and that anything that
was done in connection with it, was properly on your own responsi-
bility?

Mr. ]\[cTxEUNEY. Yes, sir, completely.

Mr. Morgan. I think we also might have, in view of the nature of
the inquiry, again, your specific observation in connection with pos-
sible pressure from the State Department.

Mr. McInernet. The only pressures from the State Department
were for the prosecution.

Mr. IMoRGAN. Do you recall who they were, specifically, that sug-
gested the wisdom of that ?

Mr. McInernet. Yes, sir. General Julius Holmes took a very strong
interest in this case, and followed it very closely, and he was the gen-
tleman who was disappointed about some of the people being no-billed,
and that thev only could be subjected to imprisonment for 2 years.

They conferred with us frequently, five or six times a week. I
know that during the proceedings, General Wedemeyer gave a citation
to Service, and they asked us for our permission to convey it to him,
and they consulted with us about restoring him to service, they con-
sulted us as to Avhether publishing houses could accept Roth's book
for publication, and Jaffe's and they were very scrupulous about not
doing anything which might interfere or embarrass this investigation
in any way.

I might make this one little amendment. I want the record to be
complete on this.

With regard to anyone coming in to the Department, the people
who represented Jaffe in New York was the firm of Congressman
Emanuel Celler, and he did come to see me once, in the Department,
immediately after the arrest, and he talked to me in terms which I
understood to be that Jaffe might be in a position to help the Govern-
ment in this case. 1 was left with the impression that Jalfe might
become a Government witness.

After that conference, his associate took over in the case and I
never saw Congressman Celler again.

^Iv. Morgan. Xow, this case of course has been rather celebrated
in the press, and you doubtless are as familiar with various ramifica-
tions of it, that is reports of various ramifications of it, as anyone
here, perhaps more so.

Are there any other considerations that have been expressed in the
press, one way or the other, that you would like to clear up at this
point, of any kind ?

Mr. jMcInernet. Well, I would like to say this : With respect to the
series of articles which are appearing in the Scripps-Howard news-
papers, that these articles are more or less factual, except for the con-
clusions and overtones contained in them ; and, immediately after the
three people in this case were no-billed, the author of those articles
came to Washington, Mr. Woltman, and he was very exasperated



998 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOlSr

and took the view that as a result of the no-bills, someone could be
sued for libel, as a result of newspaper articles published in this case.

The Scripps-Howard papers were subsequently sued for libel by
Mark Gayn, I believe as a result of Mr. Woltman's articles. They
came down to see me, to see if I could help them in their libel suit,
and I did help them, as far as I could.

A representative of the Scripps Howard papers came to see me
within the past month, the same gentleman who had been to see me
before, and he told me that that suit by Mark Gayn was still pending
against Scripps Howard newspapers.

Mr. Morgan. As you know, Mr. Mclnerney, this subcommittee is
charged with inquiring into the possibility of disloyalty in the State
Department. From your consideration of this case, and from your
viewpoint, is there any evidence, to your knowledge, in this case of an
effort to shield or to harbor disloyal persons in our State Department ?

Mr. McInerney. In the Amerasia case ?

Mr. Morgan. Yes ; in the Amerasia case.

Mr. McInerney. No, sir. The only two employees involved, of
course, were Larsen and Service. Larsen having pled guilty, was not
reinstated. Service, having been unanimously no-billed was rehired.

Mr, Morgan. You saw all of the evidence I assume, available in
connection with John Service ?

Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. You mean — —

ISIr. Morgan. At that time.

Mr. McInerney. I, personally ?

Mr. Morgan. I mean, at the time of the prosecution, were you
cognizant and fandliar with the evidence against Mr. Service?

Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.

Mr. ]\IoRGAN. And, on the basis of your knowledge of such evi-
dence, did you feel that prosecution of him was warranted?

Mr. McInerney. No, sir.

Mr. Morgan. I believe you stated that the grand jury returned no
bills, a no bill there of 20 to 0, is that correct ?

Mr. McInerney. That is right.

Mr. Morgan. In connection with your handling of this case, after
it became apparent to you that the possibility of the motion to quash
might jeopardize the entire prosecution, was it necessary to make any
agreements with the attorneys for these defendants whereby you would
not call certain information to the attention of the court?" Anything
of that character ?

Mr. McInerney. No, sir.

Mr. Morgan. I believe those are the only questions I have to ask.

Do you have any, Mr. Morris ?

Mr. Morris. I have three questions, Mr. McInerney.

I have read in the public press, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover is reported to
have stated that he had an airtight case, having presented his evidence
to the Department of Justice.

Could you connnent upon that ?

Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. I believe the statement attributed to
him was "100 percent airtight case."

Mr. Morris Yes, sir.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 999

Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir.

I^Ir. INIoHius. That is right ?

Mr. McInerney. Mr. Hoover did not make any such statement.

Mr. INloRius. He made no such statement ?

Mr. IMcIxERXEY. No, sir ; and he has denied it.

Mr. Morris. Do you know the circumstances surrounding Lt. An-
drew Ixoth's leaving tlie service as a United States naval officer?

Mv. McTxERXEY. No, sir.

Mr. Morris. Could you, in your capacity as liaison with General
Grove, could you tell iis what process was undertaken when an ap-
plicant for employment in the Manhattan project came up for con-
sideration?

Mr. McIxERXEY. No, sir.

Mr. ISIoRRis. Those are my only questions.

Mr. McIxERXEY. Thank you.

Mr. MoRGAX. I guess that is about all for the day.

("VVliereupon, at 6 : 20 p. m., the subcommittee stood in recess, subject
to call of the Chair.)



68970—50 — pt. 1 64



STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION



friday, may 26, 1950

United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,

Washington^ D. C,

executive session

The subcommittee met, at 10 : 30 a. m., in room G-23, United States
Capitol, pursuant to notice, Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman
of the subcommittee, presiding.

Present : Senators Tydings and McMahon.

Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the subcom-
mittee, and Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee.

Senator Tydings. The subcommittee will please come to order.

We have Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Mclnerney, and Mr. Ladd here. First
we will hear from Mr. Hitchcock. I will have to swear you first.

Mr. HrrcHcocK. All right. Senator.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. HITCHCOCK

Senator Tydings. Please state for the record your full name and
your present business.

Mr. Hitchcock. I am Robert M. Hitchcock. I am a lawyer, and a
member of the firm of Kenefick, Bass, Letchworth, Baldy & Phillips,
Marine Trust Building, Buffalo, N. Y.

Senator Tydings. You are in private practice now ?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.

Senator Tydings. Are you connected with the Government in any
way now?

Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir.

Senator Tydings. At the time the Amerasia matter was being
pushed by the Government, I think it was 1945, wasn't it?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.

Senator Tydings. You were in the United States district attorney's
office in Buffalo, were you not?

Mr. Hitchcock. I was special assistant to the Attorney General,
assigned to the Criminal Division, and had been officially since March
1, 1943.

Prior to that time I had been for a period of 8 years assistant United
States attorney in the western district of New York.

Senator Tydings. So you were in the Department of Justice at the
time the Amerasia matter came to a head ?

1001



1002 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.

Mr. MoRGAX. Senator, might it not be helpful to have Mr. Hitch-
cock's professional background in the record at this point?

Senator Tydings. I think so, yes. You may give it at this point, Mr.
Hitchcock.

Mr. Hitchcock. I was graduated from Georgetown University with
an A. B. degree in 1925. I was graduated from Fordham Law School
with the degree of LL. B. in 1928. I taught at Fordham University
between 192G and 1933. Was admitted to the bar in January 1929.
Practiced law in New York until tlie summer of 1933, when I and my
family moved to Dunkirk, N. Y., which is about 45 miles from
Buffalo. I practiced there and on March 4, 1935, had been appointed
and qualified and became an active United States attorney, became
active as an assistant United States attorney for the western district
of New York, where I remained continuously until March 1, 1943. At
that time I became a special assistant to the Attorney General, as-
signed to the Criminal Division, where I continued until January 24,
1947.

I then became associated with the law firm then known as Kenefick,
Bass, Letchworth & INIitchell in the Marine Trust Building at Buffalo.