Roth, why was he not brought to trial by the military authorities?
Why didn't he stand court martial rather than to be prosecuted by
the Federal Government? He was a lieutenant in the United States
Navy, was he not ?
Mr. HrrcHcocK. I have not the slightest idea. The only thing I
know about that â€” and my recollection was refreshed by something
Mr. Mclnerney said â€” was on his arrest they tore the buttons right off
him. What happened after that I suppose I knew at the time. I
just do not remember.
Mr. Morris. That was never a factor as far as you know?
Mr. Hitchcock. A factor in what, sir?
Mr. Morris. In handling the prosecution of Andrew Roth, the fact
that he was an officer in the United States Navy.
Mr. Hitchcock. No.
Mr. Morris. I should think that would have been the first thing
that would have occured to you. "This man is a naval officer. We
cannot prosecute him. We must turn him over to the militaiy
Mr. Hitchcock. As a matter of fact, when the prosecution was au-
thorized. Counsel, I had nothing to do with that, but had I had any-
thing to do with it, I would have done it the same way.
Mr. McInernet. I think that prior to the 'prosecution, Mr. For-
restal's aide consented to his prosecution.
Mr. Morris. Who is Mr. Forrestal's aide ?
Mr, McInerney. Mathias Correa.
Mr. INIoRRis. Did he give any reasons why he was inactivated? I
presume he was inactivated.
Mr. McInerney. At the time of the arrest?
Mr. Morris. Yes.
Mr. McInerney. I do not know the Navy regulations, whether they
would suspend a man or inactivate him upon his arrest on an internal
security charge, but I know that at the time of his arrest, I believe
a naval officer was present and took some physical action of striking
Mr. Morris. Ordinarily a military service will vie with civilian au-
thorities in prosecuting a member of the armed services who has com-
mitted a crime while in service.
Mr. McInerney. I have found the opposite experience, Mr. Morris.
We have had to take on the prosecution of Army officials and Army per-
sonnel who have been charged with treason in Brooklyn, you may
recall, and Mr. Provoo in New York, and the Air Corps has asked
us to prosecute it rather than court martial. That colonel in Eng-
land â€” it has been my experience that they are veiy happy to give them
â– to you.
Mr. Morris. Was Service technically in the Army at the time?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY im'ESTIGATION 1051
Mr. McI KERNE Y. No, sir.
Mr. JNloRRis. He was not. You testified earlier â€” maybe it was you,
Mr. Hitchcock â€” that Mr. Service was really an Army man who was
beino- loaned to the United States Embassy.
Mr. Hitchcock. Xo, sir; it was just the reverse. He had been in
the State Department for a considerable time and was on loan to the
Army, but still on the State Department pay roll.
Mr. Morris. I see. Thank you very much. That is all.
Senator McMahox. Gentlemen, I am awfully sorry but I told you
I had to leave at four, and it is 2 minutes after now, so I hope that we
can wind it up Monday.
Mr. MoRGAX. I presume we are through with Mr. Hitchcock.
Senator McMahon. I think so. Has anybody got any further ques-
tions of Mr. Hitchcock ?
Mr. Mclnerney, I will want you to come back since you are in town
and 3'ou are on the Government payroll. I want the Silverthorne case
printed in the record. It is not very long and I think that would be a
good thing to have the Silverthorne case in the record, since it seems
to be the basis of so much of your reasoning. It should be printed.
The citation is Silverthorne Lionher Co., Inc., v. United States
(251 U.S. 385).
(The document above referred to is incorporated by reference.)
Mr. Morgan. I might also ask, Mr. Chairman, that 'we incorporate
by reference in our record the Congressional Record of May 22, 1950,
which contains the jDroceedings of the Hobbs Committee.
Senator McMahon. It is so ordered,
(Wliereupon, at 4: : 05 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Rel.\tions,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on Friday, May
26, 1950, in room G-23 of the United States Capitol, at 10 : 30 a. m.,
Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings and McMahon.
Also present: Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
committee; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee;
Mr. James M. Mclnerney, Assistant Attorney General of the United
States ; ]Mr. Peyton Ford, the Assistant to the Attorney General ; Mr.
D. M. Ladd, Assistant to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion; Mr. L. B. Nichols, Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon, I was called to New York to
be a pallbearer at a funeral on Monday, and while I was there I took
some memoranda that I had been working on and devised 11 questions
that it seemed to me ought to be cleared up in the public interest be-
cause, as I understand the matter, the public is more interested in
finding out why these trials did not take place, whether or not there
was evidence that had never been adduced before any investigative or
judicial body, and other matters in relation thereto, and the questions
I asked that the FBI address themselves to today are the following:
1. The names of all individuals involved in the removal of confi-
dential documents from the State Department, whether innocently or
2. How did the confidential documents get out of the State Depart-
3. Were any employees of the State Department detected taking
confidential documents ? If so, give names.
4. Were any of the confidential documents given to agents or rep-
resentatives of any other government ? If so, give details.
5. Were any employees of the State Department seen giving docu-
ments to other persons on the outside ?
6. Was there evidence of espionage? If so, give details.
7. Was evidence essential to convicting the accused obtained in such
manner as to render it inadmissible at a trial?
1054 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
8. What evidence did the FBI 'have that coukl not be challenged
as illegally obtained ^Yhich could be used to sustain the indictments?
9. Why were only three persons indicted?
10. Was all evidence the FBI had given to the grand jury against
all individuals concerned?
11. Why was it advisable to accept pleas of guilty in the fashion of
the two cases of Jaffa and Lai*sen ?
Mr. Ford, Senator, before they testify may I make a brief state-
ment on behalf of the Department ?
Senator Tydings. If you are going to testify you had better be
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence you shall give
in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Ford, I do.
STATEMENT OF PEYTON FOED, ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY
Mr. Ford. I was not in the Department at the time this case oc-
curred. The brief statement I want to make is this :
There has been apparent criticism in the press against the Depart-
ment of Justice and its investigative agency, the FBI. I would like
to state on behalf of the Department that at the time this case occurred
the first information the FBI received on it appeared to be of an
extremely serious nature. There were certain extraordinary methods,
as it were, used to investigate the case. We took certain calculated
risks, I want to state that at no time did the Criminal Division of
the Department or any official be critical of the methods used by the
FBI in making this investigation. We got some unfortunate breaks,
as you get in any case, but that is no reflection upon the investigative
techniques used or the investigation made.
I just want to put that in the record.
Senator Tydings. Thank you, ]Mr. Ford.
Will each of you gentlemen stand and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence you shall give
in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Ladd, I do.
Mr. Nichols. I do.
STATEMENTS OF D. MILTON LADD, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR,
AND L. B. NICHOLS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU
Senator Tydings. Mr. Ladd, give your full name.
Mr. Ladd. D. Milton Ladd, Assistant to the Director, Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation.
Senator Tydings. How long have you been connected with the
Bureau, Mr. Ladd?
Mr. Ladd. Since November of 1928.
Senator Tydings. What have been your various positions therein?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1055
Mr. Ladd. I started as a si)ec'ial a<ieiit invest ijiatin<>' cases in the
field. Thereafter I have been in charoe of fiehl oilices at New Orleans,
St. Louis, St. Paul, the AVashinoton field oflice, Chicago, 111.; then
Assistant Director in charge of the laboratory and the Identification
Division for 2 years. Foilowinji; that I was Assistant Director in
charge of the Security Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
until a year ago, when I assumed the duties of Assistant to the Director.
Senator TvoTXiis. How old are you, Mr. Ladd?
Mr. Ladd. Forty-seven.
Senator Tydings. What is your present address?
Mr. Ladd. 5235 Nebraska Avenue.
Senator Ttdixos. Were 3'ou in charge of the FBI detail that acted
in the Amerasia case?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct; yes.
Senator Tydixgs. When were you first pust on this work ?
Mr. Ladd. I assumed charge of the investigative work in the Se-
curit}' Division in October of '41.
Senator Tydings. When were you assigned to the Amerasia matter ?
Mr. Ladd. On INIarch 14 the matter was referred to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Tydings. 1941 ?
Mr. Ladd. 1945.
Senator Tydings. When did you complete your matters? That is,
when were the arrests made ?
Mr. Ladd. The arrests were made on June 6, 1945.
Senator Tydings. So almost 3 months you were working on the case ?
Mr. Ladd. Tliat is correct.
Senator Tydixgs. How many men did you liave engaged in this
enterprise at the start, approximately, the first week or 10 days ?
Mr. Ladd. About 15 or 20, 1 imagine, the first week.
Senator Tydix'GS. What was the highest number you had at any
one time ?
Mr. Ladd. Probably approximately 70 to 75,
Senator Tydixgs. For how long were 70 to 75 engaged in this work?
Mr. Ladd. That would vary, Senator, because it would depend upon
the surveillance, and so forth.
Senator T-iTux^Gs. Could you give me a general idea of about how
long you used 70?
Mr. Ladd. I would say for about a month.
Senator Tydixgs. That would be toward the end, more than toward
the beginning, as your case was developed?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Ladd, with any state-
ment you care to make.
Mr. FoiiD. ]May I be excused?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
Mr. Ladd, It is not our intention to be repitious in presenting cer-
tain phases of the Amerasia case to the committee, so we will confine
our statement to the clarification of a number of situations which may
have raised certain questions in the minds of the connnittee, as we
know the connnittee is desirous of having a complete picture objec-
tively given of this matter.
1056 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
A question has been raised as to the dispatch with whicli the investi-
gation was handled. The facts in this connection are that there was
no delay. The investigation was handled with dispatch. This
matter was first referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by
the State Department on the evening of March 14, 1945, at which
time information was furnished indicating that Government docu-
ments of top secret character had been found by OSS in the offices
of Amerasia magazine.
The official documents recovered by OSS were of a restricted and
classified nature and at the time were a great cause for alarm by those
having responsibility for security and who were security conscious.
Among these documents w^ere the following :
Targets in Japan â€” classified "top secret."
Japan Air Force â€” classified "top secret."
Japanese resources â€” classified "top secret."
Disposition of Japanese naval units after battle of October
20, 1944 â€” classified "top secret."
In connection with this latter document it should be remembered
that until the cessation of hostilities one of the most jealously guarded
naval secrets was its ability to intercept and break the Japanese naval
code. In fact, Mr. Robert Hitchcock in the preparation of this case
in September of 1945 requested the details of a document recovered
in the office of "Amerasia" disclosing the fact that the Navy had
broken the Japanese code. At that time, he was informed through
his associate that this and other documents had been obtained by OSS
prior to the Bureau's entering the case in a manner which made them
inadmissible as evidence.
The knowledge of the existence of such documents at the inception
of the investigation, in unauthorized hands, raised many possibilities
from an investigative standpoint. It was entirely possible that their
possession in unauthorized hands reflected the existence of a here-
tofore unknown espionage ring witli highly placed associates in the
Federal services having access to vital information of the utmost
importance to security of wartime secrets. It was also entirely pos-
sible that the existence of documents out of the files where they be-
longed reflected carelessness, cupidity or a lack of security con-
Still a third possibility existed, namely, that unprincipled jour-
nalism which was not characteristic of responsible journalism every-
where in time of war and peace was endeavoring to develop exclusive
stories. No possibility could be overlooked. The situation was
r.rgent. Time was of the essence. It was not unreasonable to consider
that the safety of American lives was at stake. The identities of the
individuals responsible for furnishing "Amerasia" with Government
documents were not known to the FBI or to the State Department.
An immediate investigation was instituted, and as a result it was
determined that Philip Jatfe and Kate Mitchell were the co-editors
of this magazine and that they were in very frequent contact with
Emmanuel Larsen of the State Department, Lt. Andrew Roth of ONI,
and Mark Gayn. On April 18, 1945, approximately 1 month later, a
conference was held between Gen. Julius Holmes, Assistant Secretary
of State, Mathias Gorrea. assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, and
representatives of the FBI, At that time, the FBI advised that it
STATE DEPARTMENT E]\IPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION 1057
was read}' to present the ease for such prosecutive action as tlie Depart-
ment might consider proper. However, the representatives of the
State and Navv De]>artments requested that tlie investigation be con-
tinued for an additional 2 months or so for the purpose of determin-
ing the identities of other employees of their Departments who might
be engaged in submitting material to Jaffe and to determine whether
Jatfe was actually obtaining this material for the use of a foreign
government. As a result of this request, investigation was continued.
Extensive investigation was continued in this matter until on May
29, 1945, full details were furnished to Mr. Tom C. Clai'k, then Assist-
ant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the De-
l)artment of Justice. Later that day, Mr. James Mclnerney, then a
special assistant to the Attorney General, conferred with FBI officials
and reviewed the evidence in the case. He was informed of all FBI
investigative procedures employed and pointed out that prosecution
would be authorized. However, on May 31, 1945, Mr. Mclnernej'^
advised the FBI that prosecution in connection with this matter was
to be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the San Francisco Con-
ference of the United Nations. We were subsequently advised that
this request to the Department emanated from the naval aide at the
"\^niite House. On June 2, 1945, a representative of the State Depart-
ment inquired as to the status of prosecution and was informed that
prosecution Avas being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the
United Nations conference. As a result of this, General Holmes, of
the State Department, contacted President Truman concerning this
case and furnished him with the above information. President
Truman then immediately personally telephoned a representative of
the FBI and instructed in no uncertain terms that the prosecution
should proceed as quickly as possible and added that in the event
instructions were received to the contrary from anyone, he should be
^Ir. ISIcIxERXEY. In my previous testimony about this particular
aspect, as to the holding up of the case, I believe I stated that I was
unable to recall the circumstances under which the instruction was
given. I have since located a note dated May 29, which is in my
handwriting, and which states :
Matter may be held up by Navy. Mr. Forrestal called Mr. Clark.
ISIr. Ladd. We had previously been advised that the President was
deeply concerned about the serious nature of this case and wanted
this case given most vigorous investigative and prosecutive attention.
Innnediately after the President's call, the Criminal Division of
the Department of Justice was advised of the President's instructions
and accordingly they prepared the complaints in this case after a full
discussion of all of the evidence and with full knowledge of the
investigative procedures utilized by the FBI in this case. The FBI
was instructed to make the arrests at a time when a search incident to
the arrest could be made.
On the late afternoon and evening of June 6, 1945, all of the indi-
viduals were taken into custody by FBI agents, at which time a large
number of docuinents, the majority of which were of Government
origin or Government ]:)roperty, were obtained.
These recovered documents rej^resented rei:)orts from the State De-
partment, the Navy Department, OSS, OWI, Federal Communications
1058 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Commission, Foreign Economic Administration, and the "War De-
partment. Some of them dealt with military matters, political affairs,
and so forth. Many of these documents bore the classifications "secret,"
"confidential," or "restricted." Some were originals, some were copies
prepared at the time the originals were made, and others were copied
from the originals. The contents of these documents speak for them-
selves, such as :
An ONI report dated September 17, 1912, reflecting the organization
of Japanese Navy fleets and other operating forces. This bore the
classification "confidential" (found in the Amerasia offices).
A "strictly confidential" communication from Ambassador Gauss,
dated February 17, 1944, entitled "Reorganization of the Chinese Air
Force" ( fomid in the Amerasia office) .
A report of the Military Intelligence Division, dated June 10,
1942, entitled "Airfield, Seaplane Anchorages" pertaining to Japan,
Korea, Formosa. This document is classified (found in Amerasia
Senator Tydings. "VVliere you say "classified" do you mean it is
marked "Classified" or did it have a secret or confidential marking?
Mr. Nicholas. ONI stated when we checked the documents that this
was a classified document which had been in their files.
Mr. Ladd. It has no stamp showing its classification, but when we
checked it back we received that information.
Senator Tydings. In each of these matters you say "a confidential
connnunication," and so on. Is that an original, or was it a copy?
Mr. Ladd. Some of them were ozalid copies. This is a photostat
of the actual paper.
Senator Tydings. Was the actual paper found ?
Mr. Ladd. It was an ozalid copy.
A Military Intelligence Division report classified "Confidential"
bearing the ])enciled notation "war ])lans" entitled "Chinese Guerrilla
Training School at Manchiang, N. W. Kiangsu" (found in the apart-
ment of Emmanuel Larsen) .
Document dated March 17, 1945, over the signature of John Stewart
Service, entitled "Verification of Communists' Territorial Claims by
Direct American Observations," which also listed some of the places
from which United States airmen had been rescued out of Jap terri-
tory ( found in the offices of Amerasia) .
Senator Tydings. Was that marked "Classified" or anything?
That is the document dated ISIarch 17, 1945. There is no classification
given on that one whatsoever here in your summary.
Mr. Ladd. No ; it is not marked "Classified."
Senator Tydings. Don't you think, in order to keep your record
straight, it ought to be corrected to say "Nonclassified" or whatever
terminology is appropriate ?
Mr. Ladd. O. K. ; "unclassified." That would then read, "unclas-
sified" before "document."
Mr. Morris. In whose possession was that found ?
Mr. Ladd. It was found in the office of Amerasia.
A "secret" document over the signature of John Stewart Service,
dated March 20, 1945, entitled "Yen Hsi-Shans' Dealings With the
Japanese" (found in the offices of Amerasia) .
A document classified "Secret" entitled "Chiang Kai-shek's Treat-
ment of the Kwangsi Clique," dated March 21. 1945, over the signa-
STATE DEPARTMENT e:MPLOYEE LOYALTY im^ESTIGATION 1059
\mv of John Stowart Sorvice (found in the brief case of Phili[) Jaffe
in the otllce of Anierasia at the t inie of his arrest ) .
An ONI document dated March 24, 1944, cUissified "confidential'
entitled ''C'hina Coast Physical Geop-apliy and Coastwise Shipping
Routes." This bore the penciled notation "war plans, coastal areas,
inner-passage, niinetl areas" (found in Larsen's apartment).
A document classified "Very secret"' entitled "One Reason Why
Wedemeyer Returned to Washington.'' This contained a copy of a
memorandum to tlie Joint Chiefs'of Staff, Washington, D. C. (found
in Larsen's apartment).
Document classified "Secret" report of the Military Intelligence
Division dated :\Iarch n, 1044, entitled "Changes to Order of Battle
of Chinese Army as of February 29, 1944" (found in Larsen's apart-
A document classified "Secret'" prepared by the INIilitary Intelli-
gence Division, dated February 4, 1944, entitled "Order of Battle of
the Chinese Army as of December 31, 1943" (found in Larsen's apart-
Senator Tydixgs. Of these that you have read, which were copies
and which were originals so far as you are able to identify them now?
You say some were originals, some were copies prepared at the time
the originals were made, and others were copies of the originals. I
would like you to furnish that for the record, rather than to stop now.
Mr. Ladd. We can do tliat.
Senator Tydixgs. Just in case somebody wants to know which of
these were originals and which were copies, so we will have that.
Mr. Ladd. I will be glad to do that.
The FBI made every effort to check on the various documents and
cover outstanding leads with dispatch. Departmental attorneys were
anxious to secure the results of this investigative activity as rapidly
as possible as they desired to ])resent the facts to the grand jury at the
earliest possible date. The Bureau was advised that the facts would
be presented to the grand jury on June 21, 1945, and on that same day,
a clepartmental attorney advised an FBI oflicial that he was of the
opinion that it would be desirable to have this grand jury return in-
dictments charging violation by the defendiints of sections 100 and
101, title 18, United States Code. The term of this grand jury ex-
l)ired July 2, 1945, and no returns were made. The facts were re-
presented to a second grand jury beginning July 30, 1945, and on
August 10, 1945, true bills against Philip Jaffe, Emmanuel Larsen^
and xVndrew Roth were returned. No bills were returned on John
Service, Kate Mitchell, and Mark Gayn.
The only entry which was questioned was revealed by a motion to
quash supported by an affidavit executed by Larsen and filed in the
district coui't on September 28, 1945.
The FBI had advised the Department that its agents had entered
apartment 207, 1650 Harvard Street, occupied by Emmanuel Larsen,.
on April 6, 1945. A sample of ty])writing was taken from a type-
writer found in the apartment. On June 4, 1945, Larsen moved from