of view and the possibility of Indian freedom after the war, and it
suggested a solution of the then present impasse as "a step in further-
ing the ideals of the Atlantic Charter."

The agents also found two letters in Roth's handwriting on plain
stationery. The dateline of one was "American Mission, New Delhi,
January 21, 1944." This letter was addressed to the Secretary of
State and was signed "Merrell." It contained a summary of political
comment in the Indian press for the week ended January 15, 1944.
The other letter had an identical source and addressee. It was dated
March 14, 1944, and contained reports on the vote of the Central
Legislative Assembly on March 13, 1944, passing a motion, 50 to 48,
calling for a reduction in the budget.

They also found in Roth's handwriting, on Hotel Statler stationery,
a copy of a letter bearing the dateline, "American Mission, New
Delhi,' February 4, 1944."

It was addressed to the Secretary of State and was signed "Merrell.'^
It referred to a resolution passed by an informal conference of con-
gress members of the Madras legislature and made comments on it.

They also found two sheets of plain stationery in Roth's hand-
writing with the dateline "Bombay, August 11, 1944, subject: Con-
gress Socialist Reaction to Mr. Gandhi's Recent Political Moves."
It was signed "George D. Lamont, American Consul."

In addition to associations and meetings previously mentioned, there
were some meetings in Washington between Roth and Jaffe, between
Roth and Larsen and between Roth, Jaffe and Larsen. Two of these
had some significance. I want to make a change there. One of
th^m had some significance.

Senator Tydings. One of them instead of two of them. Is that
right?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.

On March 21, 1945, Jaffe and Roth drove to a parking lot at the
Library of Congress in Roth's car. They remained there about 25
minutes, talking and examining papers. They then went into the
Library of Congress. After a few minutes, they came out, got back
in Roth's car and drove to Roth's home in Arlington, Va.

In addition. Roth introduced both Service and Larsen to Jaffe.

The items of documentary evidence, as I have mentioned, were not
of recent date, were innocuous in content, and there was no evidence
as to who first secured copies from the State Dei^artment or where



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION 1011

Roth irot thoni. The ones on Hotel Statler stationery indicated that
Roth may have obtained them from Jatl'e, rather than Jatfe from Roth,
Moreover, Roth never worked at the State Department and had no
access to the files of the State Department.

In addition. Roth published a book, Dilemma in Japan, in the
summer of 1045 and when he was arrested, he said it was the manu-
script of that book that he and Jaffe had at the Library of Congress.

If I may interjiolate there, it just occurs to me now, I believe, and
this is to the best of my recollection, that the agents also interviewed
Service's wife very shortly after or at the time of Service's arrest,
and they asked her anything she knew about Jaffe and Roth re-
viewing manuscripts or anything of that kind and my recollection
is she said that it wasn't done, that they didn't do it.

Senator Tydings. That they did not do it?

Mr. Hitchcock. That they did not do it.

Senator Ttdixgs. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. Hitchcock. In addition, Roth was never observed giving or
receiving from any of the subjects in the case any material of any
kind.

Both Larsen and Roth were at one time employed in the Office of
Naval Intelligence. Larsen transferred to the State Department Au-
gust 31, 1944. Not a single ONI document or copy after that date
was recovered from any of the subjects. Approximately 50 ONI
source items were recovered at the Amerasia offices. Larsen had more
than 100 such items in his apartment when he was arrested.

Senator Tydings. It would appear from these dates that from the
time Larsen left the ONI, the Naval Intelligence, that documents of
the Naval Intelligence were not acquired or obtained by anybody
associated with Jaffe?

Mr. Hitchcock. It would so appear.

Senator Tydixgs. The time Larsen was in ONI, or during the time
he was in ONI, documents were found in Jaffe's possession during the
tenure of Larsen with ONI?

Mr. Hitchcock. Bearing dates during the tenure.

Senator Tydings. That is a very significant thing. How long did
Roth stay iii Naval Intelligence after Larsen left?

Mr. Hitchcock. I don't know. He certainly was there up until
June 6, 1945.

Mr. McInkrney. They could obtain it for the day he was arrested.

Senator Tydings. At least he had about 10 months after that when
no documents showed up.

All right. Go on.

Mr. HrrcHcocK. After Jaffe and Larsen entered their pleas, I in-
terviewed them both in the hope of making a case with which we
could go to trial against Roth.

Larsen, who manifested considerable animosity toward Roth and
manifested no desire to protect him, could tell us not one thing detri-
mental to Roth tliat would assist us in prosecuting. Jaffe completely
exonerated Roth. Jaffe was a close friend of Roth and may well have
lied to me. However, the point is that we got nothing from either
Jaffe or Larsen.

We nol-prossed the indictment as to Roth on February 15, 1946.
We had to do something then because Roth's attornevs had secured



1012 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INl'ESTIGATION

an order requiring us to supply a bill of particulars against Roth,
and we were ordered to proceed to trial.

It was my opinion then and it is my opinion now that we had no
case against Roth with which Ave could have gone to trial with the
slightest likelihood of success.

On January 23, 1946, I wrote the FBI, reviewing all the evidence
against Roth and stating that it was the opinion of all the attorneys
who had worked on the case that the evidence was insufficient to war-
rant a trial and that a nolle prosequi should be entered. I asked their
opinion as to the proposed disposition. On January 28, the FBI re-
plied in substance that it had no recommendation and, entirely prop
erly, assigning as tlie reason that it was entirely within the province
of the Department of Justice to make such decisions.

Roth did not appear before the grand jury. The grand jury voted
13 to 7 to indict him. Twelve votes are necessary to indict.

Senator Tydings. Wliy would they indict him with no evidence
that he had taken any of the papers or gotten any of the papers or
found any of the papers ?

Mr. Hitchcock. The evidence before the grand jury, sir, was ex-
actly as I have outlined it ; that Service was very close personally with
Jaffe ; that Service had met with some of these defendants with some
degree of frequency ; that there were the papers in Jaffe's office, such
as they were.

Senator Ttdings. One of them on his typewriter ?

Mr. Hitchcock. One of them <m Roth's typewriter, and the other
four or five in his handwriting. Those copies were copies of papers
that the FBI traced to papers that were filed and they were the
property of the State Department.

I might add that Roth had made no exj^lanation of anything, and
that was what the grand jury by a vote of 13 to 7 apparently concluded
was a prima facie case.

Senator Tydixgs. They felt that he was in it, and you felt perhaps
he was in it too, but you could not get the amount of evidence that
would convict. Is that correct ?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, I think that is correct, sir, but I have been
reminded that later when I talked with Jaffe, I asked Jaffe about this
Hotel Statler and handwritten copies of this Roth material that was
found in Roth's office, and I took a written statement from Jaffe that
covered that.

Jaffe told me that he, Jaffe, had been given those papers by a Hindu
or Indian by the name of Rahum in Washington, and that while Roth
was with Jaffe in the Hotel Statler he wanted to make copies of those
so he could return the ones that this Rahum had given him, Jaffe, who
wanted them back promptly, so he took Roth to help him copy them.
A nyhow, that was his explanation.

I am also reminded, and it had not occurred to me, that the FBI re-
ports showed that Rahum was a known contact of Jaffe.

Senator Ttdings. It showed there was authenticity to the story?

Mr. Hitchcock. Well, I would never believe Jaffe, Senator Tydings.
What I am telling you is what he told me.

Senator Tydings. I thought you said the FBI had established the
fact Rahum was a contact of Jaffe ?

Mr. Hitchcock. I have just been reminded of tliat.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IlSrV'ESTIGATION 1013

Senator Ttdtxgs. If that is true, that would give some authenticity
throuo-h the FBI to Roth's story?

]Mr. Hitchcock. I have never made any conclusion at all.

Senator Tydings. It would be a guess.

Mr. ISIcIxERXET. ISlay I put a sentence in here?

Senator Tydings. Yes.

Mr. McInerney. The FBI saw Rahum was contacting Jaffe, visit-
ing him at the Statler Hotel, and was reported to be carrying secret
material for Jaffe when he left the country.

Senator Tydixgs. Now let's see. They had one more than enough
to indict?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.

Senator Tydings. Did you have occasion to take up with the FBI
before the question of whether it was advisable to prosecute where
prosecution did not seem advisable on any other cases?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, I have done it informally in many cases.

Senator Tydings. You say you have a difficult case ?

Mr. Hitchcock. No, I have never taken it up with an office of the
FBI in that way, sir, but with the special agents who have worked on
a case with me, and the cases where the special agent in charge of the
prosecution, or the principal agent in charge. Obviously, I would
discuss it. I would say "Here is what we have, and what do you
think?"

Senator Tydings, Would they always give you a perfectly frank
answer ?

Mr. Hitchcock. Off the record, they would.

Senator Tydings. Oh, they would give you an answer off the rec-
ord, but for reasons of policy they would not commit themselves.
All right, go ahead.

Mr. Hitchcock. I don't like the word "commit," they never did do
that. It just wasn't their practice to do it.

Senator Tydings. They would say, "Our mission is to investigate and
we are not concerned primaril}^ with the prosecution directly and,
therefore, we would rather not express an opinion and won't pass ai>
opinion." That will be your decision, and what you say off the rec-
ord, "Do yoii think we could make the case stick?" — sometimes you
can get an answer from them but it is not an official answer.

Mr. Hitchcock. You can get helpful opinions from them. The
point is one of complete understanding and cooperation. I would
not want to dismiss or nolle a case from any agency that is presenting
it without first laying the cards on the table, and without saying "It
doesn't look like we have enough. It doesn't look like we can succeed."

Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. Hitchcock. The proceeding before the grand jury disclosed that
many documents were declassified for the purpose of releasing the
information, although the documents on their face did not show that
they had been declassified.

In many instances no record was kept as to what documents had been
declassified. One Government officer testified that ad hoc declassi-
fications were made. Many of these documents had wide circula-
tion. By that I mean that many duplicates were made — in one in-
stance I recall .jOO — and distributed to various agencies.

Senator Tydings. So they would still bear the mark "classified," al-
though they had been released to the public at the same time?



1014 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Mr. Hitchcock. That is the time he was before the grand jury.

Senator Tydings. I think we all know that is so, but I don't know
whether it was so in these cases, but it is the policy sometimes.

Mr. Hitchcock. Well, the precise testimony on that I, of course,
Senator, don't recall, but the substance of it is as I have stated.

Senator Tydings. Well, I think you have covered it. Go ahead.

Mr. Hitchcock. In this connection we were unable to determine
in many instances from just what agency the seized document had
been taken and in some instances it was not possible to determine
whether or not any copies were missing from agencies to which copies
had been routed.

Testimony before the grand jury showed that classifications were
not standardized. Usually the writer in a foreign country made the
classification. In part, this was governed by his desire to have the
matter transmitted, for example, by wire or plane, because top classi-
fication had precedence.

Apart from the records of the OXI and the State Department,
where La] sen and Roth were employed, we were at a complete loss to
ascribe to any of the subjects arrested the removal of records from
the Offict of Strategic Services, the Military Intelligence Division,
or the Bureau of Economic Warfare, for example.

Except, it occurs to me to say this : My recollection is that the great
majority, and by that I mean practically all of these documents that
were seized, that is, not copies of documents, but the documents them-
selves, eithei' showed on their face that they had been routed, that is,
those which did not emanate from the State Department, had been
routed to the State Department, and copies of them were perhaps
copies that had been routed to the State Department.

Senator Tydings. All right.

Mr. Hitchcock. Several hundred documents were recovered in the
Amerasia offices and Larsen's apartment when Jaffe and Larsen were
arrested. Part of them showed clearly that they were the property
of various Government agencies. Part clearly were established as
being copies of documents originating in various Government agen-
cies. Most of them were from the State Department. Some of those
seized at the Amerasia offices had notations in Larsen's handwriting.
Some bore his fingerprints.

I never had the slightest doubt that if we could use these documents
and copies in evidence at a trial, we had a better than good case
against Jaffe and Larsen.

The New York defendants, Kate Mitchell, Jaffe, and Gayn, after
their arrest demanded hearings before a United States Commissioner,
and by law they were entitled to them.

May I interpolate here and say also that the Washington defend-
ants as well demanded hearings before a United States Commissioner,
and may I also interpolate there and say that I do not recall the exact
date I started on this case. It was at least a week after June 6,
and I would say the date was either the 13, 14, or 15 of June. We
started presenting it to the grand jury on June 21, 1945.

We did not want to present our evidence at that time in a public
hearing because the tremendous work of tracing those documents
back to their sources had by no means been completed, because of our
disappointment that incriminating statements had not been made by



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1015

the det'eiuliiiits wlien they were arrested, and because we did not want
to show how little or liow much we hacl against any defendant.

To avoid preliniinarv hearings we decided to i)resent what we had
t o a grand j urv just as quicklv as possible. This was done, as I recall, on
June 21. 11)45'.

About that time the attorneys representing the various defendants
connnunicated with us and asked for a conference. The matter was
discussed by ]\Ir. Clark. Mr. Mclnerney, and myself, and we mutually
agreed that they should have the opportunity of conferrinc^ with us.

Mr. Clark at that time was the Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Criminal Division, the post Mr. Mclnerney now holds,
and h was right during this time that he became Attorney General,
and I believe the date was June 30, 1945.

I have never known an instance where such a request was made by
re})utable attorneys in or out of Government service and was denied.

The conferenceVas arranged for June 27, 1945, and Mr. Mclnerney
has refreshed my recollection tluit that was the correct date, and it is,
as I recall. The attorneys representing the defendants were there.
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division,
Mr. Clark, Mr. Mclnerney, Mr. Woerheide, and I were present.

The defense attorneys made the claim that their clients had done
nothing more than was the general practice, in that magazines, news-
]^apers, radio commentators, and columnists were constantly obtaining
information from people in vari(»as Government agencies and that,
this being so, if any agency was going to put a stop to the practice,
there should be some warning short of prosecution.

In this connection they argued that their clients were being dis-
criminated against, in fact they claimed that their clients were being
persecuted because they disagreed with the State Department policy
relative to the Far East, particularly China.

The claim was made that these defendants had done no more than
many reputable writers were doing and had been doing in the past.
They asserted that a great injn>tice had been done to their clients
by arrest and the Nation-wide publicity attendant on the arrests.
They argued that a further great injustice would be done if indict-
ments were i^eturned upon which convictions could not be obtained.

The defense attorneys insisted that the information in many of the
seized documents already had been published in whole or in part in
m.any publications.

They pleaded with ns to look into the matter further and, in con-
nection with their claim of the innocence of their clients, they re-
minded us of our obligation to protect the innocent as well as to punish
the guilty.

It was my recollection night before last in Buffalo when I prepared
ihis that the attorneys for five of the defendants were at the June 27
conference. I checked that with Mr. Mclnerney yesterday, and I find
that mv recollection was erroneous, that the attorneys at that June
27 conference were attorneys representing Jaffe, Kate Mitchell, and
Gayn.

The suggestion was made that if the grand jury then considering
the case voted to indict any or all of the defendants, a sealed indict-
ment might be reported, which v.ould mean that there would be no
immediate publicity about the indictment. Attorneys representing

68970 — 50 — pt. 1 65



1016 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

some defendants strenuously objected to this on the ground that even
a sealed indictment would have to be opened sometime.

In addition, one of the attorneys stated that he wanted to request
that the grand jury permit his client to waive immunity and testify.
Such requests are invariably granted, for it gives the prosecutor an
opportunity to thoroughly question a defendant under oath without
defense counsel being present and therefore without objections to
questions. This procedure has at times resulted in making a strong
case of a weak one.

The grand jury considering the case was due to terminate its work
July 2, and Mr. Clark, Mr. Mclnerney, and I discussed the matter
in full detail and mutually, without any disagreement, arrived at
the conclusion that every defendant, through his attorney, should
be advised that if he so desired he would be permitted to testify before
tlie grand jury on signing a waiver of immunity.

We further mutually agreed and without any disagreement arrived
at the conclusion that we would either wait until the latter part of
July, when the next grand jury would be in session, or would obtain
an order extending the life of the grand jury then in session another
month or 6 weeks, and that we would leave it to the grand jury as to
which it preferred. This was done, and the case was withdrawi;i
from the grand jury.

In other words, the grand jury didn't want their time extended.
They wanted to complete their work.

Senator Tydings, my understanding is that the grand juries — I have
been told that the grand juries sit for a period of 3 months here in
tlie District. Whether that is so, I don't Iniow. I never knew of it.
These people had just completed serving their 3 months. It was in-
sufferably hot here in Washington. Many of them had made arrange-
ments for vacations, and they had been away from business and didn't
want to be held over this intervenmg time.

Kate Mitchell's — excuse me. That is the wrong paragraph.

In connection with this conference of June 27, we obtained the assur-
ance of the defense attorneys they would not insist on preliminary
hearings and would produce their clients, if they decided to have
them appear before the grand jury, for examination by us at the De-
partment of Justice before their grand- jury appearance.

Senator Tydings. Hold that a moment.

Mr. Hitchcock, I want to hold that, too. ]\Iay I say this was our
primary reason for getting this case to the grand jury.

Senator TydincxS. You mean by preliminary hearings, hearings be-
fore the commissioner?

Mr. Hitchcock. Before a United States commissioner. That was
our primary purpose, to avoid this, to get it to the grand jury as quickly
as we did, because, once the grand jury had acted, the United States
commissioner lost jurisdiction and we would not have to go to a pub-
lic hearing, and that problem was avoided by the attorneys agreeing
that they would adjourn from time to time these preliminary hearings
they demanded and give us a chance to proceed more leisurely.

Kate Mitchell's attorneys formally rec{uested that she be permitted
to go before the grand jury and agreed that she would sign a waiver
of immunity. We notified every other attorney that such a request
had been made by one of the defendants and that if, under the same



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IlSrV'ESTIGATION 1017

conditions, their clients wanted to waive immnnity and testify before
the grand jury, they would have the same opportunity.

In addition to Kate Mitchell's request, such a request was made in
behalf of Gayn, Service, and Jaffe. As to Larsen and Eoth, one of
them declined and the other did not reply. Which was which I don't
remember.

Jatfe's attorney later withdrew his request.

Senator Ttdings. You mean Jaffe asked to go before the grand
jury?

Mr. Hitchcock. Through his attorney he did.

Senator Ttdings. And Service ?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.

Senator Tydingss And Gayn ?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.

Senator Tydings. And Kate Mitchell?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.

Senator Tydings. And Larsen or Roth, one of the two, did not
reply ?

Mr. Hitchcock. They either replied or declined.

Senator Tydings. Did Jaffe actually go before the grand jury and
waive immunity?

Mr. Hitchcock. Jaffe's attorney later withdrew his request.

Senator Tydings. All right.

Mr. Hitchcock. Later in July Mr. Anderson and I interviewed, at
the Department of Justice, Gayn, Kate Mitchell, and Service. They
were interviewed separately and on more than one occasion, always
in the presence of their counsel.

The second grand jury heard testimony for approximately 1 week.
As I recall, it started on July 30 or 31 and continued until August 8.

Every bit of evidence we had, including every document seized,
was submitted to that grand jury. We presented all that was pre-
sented on the one day to the first grand jury and, in addition, all that
had been developed since that day.

Gayn was indicted by a vote of 13 to 7. Jaffe and Larsen were
indicted by 14 to 6.

If I might interpolate, yesterday, because my memory was not
up to date on this, I asked ]Mr. Mclnerney if he would ascertain what
witnesses appeared before the grand jury on eacli occasion. In other
Mords, I wanted to completely verify my recollection that we presented
everything to the second grand jury that we presented to the first grand
jury, plus; and ]\fr. ]\lclnerney obtained that information, and I am
Avholly correct on that.

Senator Tydings. Let us pause a moment. Did you have your FBI
agents go before the grand jury ?

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.

Senator Tydings. Have you any recollection offliand about how
many went before the grand jury?

Mr. Hitchcock. I have the exact number, sir, because Mr. Mc-
lnerney obtained that information for me.

Senator Tydings. I would like to have that.

Mr. Hitchcock. I have a carbon copy of the list, sir, as given to me
by Mr. Mclnerney yesterday. I am positive that is correct.

Senator Tydings. It looks like some 35 or 40.



1018 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Mr. McInernet. Twenty-eight.

Ssnator Tydings. Twenty-eight agents?

Mr. McInerxet. No, sir; 28 witnesses, counting, or inchiding, the