every word that had been said and was now calling Mr. Surine to tell
him ""The heck with that questioning of Larsen. He is going to be no
good to us." • .
Mr. Morgan. That is a personal conjecture ^ _
Mr Larsen. That is personal and purely a conjecture, because then
Mr. Surine promptly said to me : "Yes ; you can go. I have to go, too.
And he never sent for me again.
Senator Green. Hive ym ary other reason for suspecting that
there were any hearing devices used ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; I have another reason.
Senator Green. What was it? « . t cof
Mr Larsen. When I first went into Mr. McCarthy s office, I sat
in the front room and waited. My appointment was for 5 o clock
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTVESTIGATION 1101
sharp, and I sat and waited and I heard IMr. INIcCarthy in there, saw
tlioni come and <ro, and tliey could very well have called me in, since
it was not an ollicial liearing, at 10 minutes to 5, 5 minutes to 5, or 3
minutes or 1 minute to 5, but they didn't. They waited until exactly
One man stood at the door. The door was open to his office. I sat
with my back to that wall. He stopped and watched me and watched
the clock, and at 5 he went over and took me and brought me in and
he said, "This is Mv. Lirsen. Mr. Larsen, this is Senator McCarthy."
Then I said, "How do you do? I am very glad to meet you, Sen-
Then he said, "Sit down and tell me what you know about the
Amerasia espionage case."
I thought to myself, "It is very formal, and I have a feeling that
something is being recorded around here." There was no one with a
pad or no one with a machine like this here, but I was pretty sure.
1 had a hunch. I may be wrong.
Senator Green. That is all?
Mr. Larsen. That is all.
Senator Green. Then you were questioned by two, Senator Mc-
Carthy and Senator Wherry.
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Senator Green. About your knowledge of the case. Were you ques-
tioned by anyone else?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; Senator Ferguson.
Senator Green. Tell us about that.
Mr. Larsen. I cannot remember the date, but it must have been
May 20. If I could see a calendar, I could probably identify it.
Senator Green. Was it after or before these other talks?
Mr. Larsen. It was after the last one. That was the 26th. No ; it
couldn't be. It was the Saturday before, the 20th of May. That
would be the closest to it.
Senator Green. What day of the week ?
Mr. Larsen. A Saturday.
Senator Green. How did you happen to see Senator Ferguson?
Mr. Larsi^n. He sent for me. His secretary, whom I don't know, a
Mr. Reed, telephoned my apartment and said, "My name is Reed, and
Senator Ferguson is very much interested in the case and wonders
whether you would voluntarily come up and see him," and I told him,
"I have been asked to come voluntarily to a great many people and
I am, frankly, sick and tired of it, but, lest I be thought to be hiding
from any inquiry, I will come. But may I come on my own time?
That is, at my own convenience, because I am doing little jobs now,
and I would like to get my work done and then come in."
He said, "Come at 3 p. m. on Saturday, the 20th." I am pretty sure
that was the date. And I went up there, and Mr. Ferguson was ex-
tremely nice to me and he asked me exactly the same questions as Mr.
Morgan asked me. "But tell me honestly, did you or did you not
give Jaffe any documents?"
I told him "That's the trouble; I did give him some. I did lend
him some, and I have gone through hell for it, too." But I did not
conspire and I did not associate with the group. I did not know Mr.
Gayn at all. I never spoke one word to Mr. Service concerning Jaffe
1102 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
or regarding documents, and I made it clear to him that I had met
Mr. Service only on three occasions : One, when I was ten years old
and he was 6 months old. We couldn't have conspired. Second,
when my boss in the State Department, Mr. Ballentme, who is now
with Brookings Institution, introduced me to him after a meeting.
He said, "Larsen, do you know Service ?"
I said, "I am glad to meet you. I have read many of your reports."
I didn't tell him that I didn't like his reports too much. That was all.
Third, when Mr. John Carter Vincent sent me a note one day and
said, "Would you like to go to lunch with me?'' That was about the
middle of April 1945. Service had just returned from China, and
when I went to Mr. Vincent's office he was then chief of the Chinese
desk. Then I saw Mr. Service there, and as far as I remember, the
three of us walked together to the Tally Ho Restaurant. There was
one other person. I cannot remember whether it was Mr. Emerson
or who it was, but there were four of us all together.
Mr. Morgan. You mean you never did see Service on any of the
occasions that you met Jaffe?
Mr. Larsen.' Yes, I did once. I will tell you about that later.
Senator Green. That makes another.
Mr. Larsen. Then we walked to the Tally Ho Restaurant, and got
our trays, and when we sat down, Mr. Vincent started to discuss ways
and means of getting rid of Hurley as Ambassador to China. He said
he had made an ass of himself and he was not the man, and the up and
coming political group in China was the Communist Party, the so-
called Communist Party, and Mr. Service made a few small remarks
and Vincent asked me, "What do you think about this?" and I an-
swered something to this effect : "Well, I am small fry in the State
Department. I am new there. I am very generously classed as a
country specialist and as a member of the Postwar Basic Policy Com-
mittee, but I feel that I shall start to hire and fire ambassadors when
I am made full Secretary of State."
Then there was a general chill around the table and they didn't like
it very much, and I hardly remember that we discussed anything after
that. We broke up. I went my way to the Walker-Johnson Building
and Service and John Carter Vincent went back to the main State
Building, and I never had anything to do with them after that.
Senator Green. Did that make four or three times?
Mr. Larsen. That made three times ; the first when he was a baby,
the second when we were introduced, and then this. The fourth was
when I had a meeting with Jaffe one day. That must be the 28th of
May. I didn't kee]) a record, but I can place it approximately there.
Then Mr. Jaffe called me on the phone the following day and said,
I said, "Are you still in town?"
He said, "Yes, I stayed on another day." He said, "I remembered
that I wanted the l)iogra])hies of four men, and I forgot to ask you
Avlien I saw you. You gave me all else, but I want those."
I said, "All right; if I have them I will make copies for you."
I went to my file and went back and said, "Yes, I have them."
He wanted me to copy them. He said, "I am leaving on a 1 o'clock
train," or 2 o'clock, whatever it was, and I said, "What do you want
me to do?"
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNVESTIGATION 1103
He said, ''This one time loan me your personal copies of your cards
and I Avill mail them back to you from New York."
1 don't think I ever ,<iot those cards back, and I didn't make a record
of wliat they were. But I took them down there, and when I walked
into the hotel I didn't know what room he was in, so I went to the
desk and I said, "Where is Mr. Jaffe registered?"
They said, "Koom so-and-so," so I walked over to the elevator shaft
there, and when I got there, John Service and Philip Jaffe were stand-
Senator Green. Outside the elevator ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, right outside the elevator in the Statler lobby,
and Jaffe said, "Do you know Mr. Service?"
I said, "Yes, I have met him." I do not remember whether I shook
hands or not. I asked John Service the day before yesterday at the
loyalty meeting '"Did I say anything to you?"
He said, "No, not that I remember." He said, "I remember you
came there and delivered a small envelope."
That is why I said, "The point is, it was a small enevelope." There
were four cards in it.
I said, "Philip, don't forget to send them back to me," and then
I went away.
Senator Lodge. Why did you think he wanted to have them ?
Mr. Larsex. Apparently he had something he was writing about
that concerned the men.
Senator Lodge. You thought his interest was entirely journalistic?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did at that time.
Senator Lodge. Do you think differently now.
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; I do think differently now.
Senator Green, When you say you delivered no documents at any
time, you do not call these cards documents?
Mr. Larsen. No, I never called them documents.
Senator Green. Those are the only things you ever delivered?
Mr. Larsen. No. I think I told you, sir, that I did deliver some
documents to him, which I loaned to him and he took away and re-
turned, with the exception of three that I identified, or two that I
definitely identify and one that I could not say for sure.
Senator Green. There may have been more ? You said you did not
remember those until you saw them,
Mr, Larsen. There may have been more.
Senator Green. You used the word "conspire" several times, that
they accused you of conspiring and you did not conspire. AVhat do
you mean by "conspire" ? AVhat does it mean to you ?
Mr. Larsen, I have in mind the charges preferred against me in
court on November 2. I do not remember the technical designation
of the charges, but they were "conspiracy to remove Government
documents," or "Government property," I think it was termed. I
know that term because my attorney went into it very carefully and
explained that that was the charge.
Senator (^reen. When you delivered these Government documents
you did not consider that conspiring?
Mr, Larsen. I have never been asked that question. Do you mean
conspiring with one man, Jaffe?
Senator Green. Yes.
1104 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Technically, I suppose that would be to conspire with
liim. T IT
Senator Lodge. How long had you known J atte «
Mr. Larsen. Since the spring or summer of 1944. , , , ,
Senator Lodge. You had not known him very long, then had you?
Mr. Larsen. About a year. The arrest was made m 1945.
Senator Lodge. You feel you knew him quite well?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; as well as you could know him from, say, 8 or 9
or 10, perhaps, meetings. , . , ,
Senator Lodge. But you feel now that there were some thing about
him that you did not know then, don't you?
Mr. Larsen. That's right; I do feel that.
Senator Green. Have you told us the whole of your conversation
with Senator Ferguson ? • i o -
Mr. Larsen. Yes; I think I have. I merely mentioned to Senator
Ferguson that I had been indiscreet in the illegal or unauthorized
loaning of some documents to Mr. Jaffe, and that at the time of the
arrest some of those had not been returned, and that I had made a
clean breast of it to the Justice Department and that in the final analy-
sis I had been taken to court and had entered a plea of nolo con-
tendere, which I did not know of as a plea before. I had heard the
term, but it was suggested to me by Mr. Hitchcock. He made a very
straightforward suggestion, it seemed to me at that time.
He pointed out to me, "Larsen, do you see that you have removed
Government property? Let me make it still plainer to you. If you
had taken one pencil marked 'United States Government' and then
taken that home, or given it to someone else, you had removed Gov-
ernment property or conspired to remove Government property, and
we are going to fight this case to the bitter end and you will not get
out of it."
I tried to bluff. Actually, I had a Chinese friend who sold his six
laundries, including his factory out at Front Royal, and he said,
"Jimmie, I will put ^ 10,000 in' the bank for your defense." I had
helped him at one time. The Chinese are good that way.
I went to the Justice Department and I said to my lawyer, "Let's
bluff Hitchcock a little bit."
I said, "I will go to the Supreme Court and I will fight the docu-
ments in my house. I will fight that end of it and say, 'All right, I
had authority to have them there. There is no proof that those docu-
ments you found had been given to Jaffe. On the contrary, the fact
that they are there should show they have not been given to Jaffe.'
I will confess my guilt so far as the actual loaning of some docu-
ments, and then we will find out whether I am a spy or conspirator,
or whether I have given information that was essential to the security
of the United States" and let me repeat under oath right here that I
never gave anything that was essential to the security of the United
States, for several reasons. One, I would never get that.
Mr. Morgan. Of course, that was by your interpretation of what
the information purported to be, was it not — insofar as your analysis
of the information was concerned, it would not be information of that
type. Ts that what you mean?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes; I see. That would be in my interpretation.
STATE D&PARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTV^ESTI CATION 1105
Senator Lodge. Is it not true that you mifrht not be able to judge
•whether a document involved the security of the United States or not ?
Isn't that right?
Mr. Larsen. That would be an exceptional case.
Senator Lodge. You are not a military man, are you?
Mr. Larsen. I am not a military man ; no sir.
Senator Lodge. So you might liave a document that involved the
security of the United States and you might not know it.
Mr. Larsex. I will concede that. That is possible.
Senator Lodge. You gave these documents to Mr. Jaffe because you
thought he was going to use them for a journalistic purpose. Did
you give them to any other journalists or any other educators?
Mr. Larsen. Xo. sir.
Senator Lodge. Why did you happen to pick him? If you were
going to start issuing documents to the press, why did you pick this
particular man ?
Mr. Larsen. I will answer that question. I met Mr. Jaffe through
Mr. Roth, and the purpose was to exchange personalities, and it was
not intended to be a pipeline, as it is commonly called. But I suspect
that there was, if there was any conspiracy, it was on the part of Mr.
Jaife and Mr. Roth to secure me as an eventual pipeline. I cannot
prove that. It is a mean accusation, but what I have subsequently
heard would indicate that there is a possibility of that.
Senator Lodge. That doesn't quite answer my question.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, inasmuch as I said no, I did not give anything
to anyone else, and I would not have given anything to anyone else,
any other journalist, with whom there w^ere not the relations for
'Chinese personality and biographical material.
Senator Lodge. Why did you pick these people ?
Mr. Larsen. I didn't j)ick them.
Senator Lodge. You did.
Mr. Larsen. They picked me.
Senator Lodge. Why did you want to give them the documents?
Mr. Larsen. I thinl<: I have stated tliat already.
Senator Lodge. You haven't stated it so it is clear.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I think I made it quite clear. I stated I didn't
^•ant to be bothered with extracting a conclusion from a long-winded
memorandum or dispatch and instead I let him draw his own con-
Senator Lodge. That isn't what I mean at all. Why did you give
those documents to Mr. Jaffe? That is what I want to know. It is
a perfectly simple question. You did not give them to any other
journalist. AAHiy did you give them to him ?
Mr. Larsen. Why did you marry your Avife and not any other
Senator Lodge. You answer my questions! I am not here to be
Mr. Larsen. I am here vohiiitarily. I will answer it if I like to.
I am sorry; I don't want to be in contempt of anyone here. I am
answering to the best of my ability.
I gave him the documents because he asked me to loan him that
particular document. There was no blanket agreement.
Senator Loixie. If the New York Times had come and asked you
to give them a document, would you have given it to them ?
1106 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen, No, I wouldn't.
Senator Lodge. Why do you prefer Mr. Jaffe to the New York
Mr. Laksen. I can't answer that question. I would still ask you^
why do you prefer your present wife to another woman.
Senator Lodge. You don't ask me questions, at all.
Mr. Larsen. I know I am out of order.
Senator Green. Get back in order, please.
Senator Lodge. Why do you prefer Mr. Jaffe to the New York
Times ? What is so wonderful about Mr. Jaffe ? Why did you give
him this material and you did not give it to any other journalist?
That is a perfectly simple question.
Mr. Larsen. I have to think of an intelligent answer to that.
Senator Lodge. Yes, I want an intelligent answer.
Mr. Larsen. I had become associated with Mr. Jaffe.
Senator Lodge. Why ? Why did you like him ? Why did you want
to get associated with him?
Mr. Larsen. You ask me, why did I like him ?
Ssnator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. He was, as an individual, a very pleasant person.
Senator Lodge. So any other journalist that had a pleaant person-
ality you would have given these documents to, is that right?
Mr. Larsen. No.
Senator Lodge. Then why did you prefer him ?
Mr. Larsen. We had a hobby in common there, and it was purely
based on the personality discussion and exchange. There was no other
Senator Lodge. What do you mean, "exchange of personality"?
Mr. Larsen. Exchange of personality material, notes, biographies.
Jaffe did give me some very valuable biographies on Chinese Com-
munists. I don't think anyone was up on them as well as he was.
Senator Lmix;'-. He gave you material?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. A good deal of material ?
Mr. Larsen. Quite a good deal in the beginning, and there was a
slight disillusionment on my part when he did not give me very much
Senator Lodge. Did he give you material that was useful to the
State Department ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, he did.
Senator Lodge. Do you know Michael Lee?
Mr. Larsen. I know him slightly.
Senator Lodge. How many times have you seen him ?
Mr. Larsen. Three or four times.
Senator Lodge. In what connection did you see him ?
Mr. Larsen. I met him by accident a few times. He has never
been to my house; I have never been to his house. He came to
my office and applied for a position, and we turned him down. We
had no position for him in the Navy Department.
Senator Lodge. Did you utilize him in any way in your connections
or relations with Jaffe ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. The answer is "No," under oath: definitely
"No." ' ^
STATE DEJPARTIVIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1107
Mr. Morgan. In line with some questions Senator Lodge asked you,
during the period of this association with Jaffe, did you kiow him to
be the editor of Amerasia magazine?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did.
Mr. Morgan. In your testimony before the Hobbs committee I
think you referred to the Amerasia magazine as an "important text-
book." Is that correct?
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. Did you at any time during the period of your asso-
ciation with Mr. Jaffe regard him as a leftist?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did. I asked him at one time, "Are you a Com-
munist" ? It occurred to me in this manner : After I met him I started
to read Amerasia magazine. I never wrote anything for Amerasia,
and one time when he came down — it was around Christmas time,
1944-^5 — I said to him, "Philip, why is it that you always champion
the Conmiunist cause and you never have a single good word for our
ally, Chiang Kai-shek, in it"?
He said, "Well, I will tell you. The reason is that these agrarian
reformers and so-called Communists out in China have not been given
so very much publicity, correct publicity."
I said, "On the contrary, it seems to me that every single writer
in the United States has boosted them," and I ran off some names :
Agnes Smedley, Edgar Snow, Harrison Foreman, and I believe I
even mentioned Lattimore as championing their cause, and never say-
ing a good word about the Nationalists, and I pointed out that it was
wartime and that the Nationalists were our allies, and it was a bad
thing to make a break between the Nationalist Government of Chiang
Kai-shek and the United States Government during wartime, and he
said, "Well, I am getting around to that in due course, and I shall
put the position of the Chiang Kai-shek Government as clearly and as
impartially as possible."
But, gentlemen, he never did get around to that.
Mr. Morgan. When was this conversation ?
Mr. Larsen. This conversation was around Christmas or New Year,
Mr. IMoRGAN. And you had concluded at that time that Jaffe and
his magazine were leftist, let us say ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I had concluded that they were rather leftist.
Mr. Morgan. Yet you continued to exchange information with him
up to and including May 29, 1945 ?
Mr. Larsen. That's right, and you probably ask me why.
Mr. Morgan. I am just intrigued by Senator Lodge's questions here.
As I understand your position, Mr. Larsen, all along in your testi-
mony, it is that you were pro-Chiang, let us say. and we have the anom-
alous situation here of you being pro-Chiang in association with a man
that you recognized as pro-Communist, and yet you continue over an
extended period of time to give him information. I don't understand
Mr. Larsen. I was, or was trying to be, an impartial analyst. That
means an analyst who must look at both sides, at both reports, l)ecause
we were dealing with China as a whole. And whereas I grew up with
the Kuomintang boys in China and I know them ver}^ well — I know
all their faults — I am one American who does know their good points,
1108 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTTGATION
too, and I had a few battles with Philip Jaffe on that snbject. I
pointed out to him that it is true there is plenty corruption in the
Chiang government, but there is in every government, and I believed,.
I told him, that there was probably less corruption in the Chiang gov-
ernment than there had been in many hundreds of years of Chinese
government, and that I knew the good points that Chiang Kai-shek
had to his credit, namely, the unification of the country, the unification
of tax systems, and many other things. And he didn't say anything-
to that, and I felt that ideologically we were not on the same basis.
But let me add one thing that you and many other people in Amer-
ica seem to lose sight of. We were at that time at war with Japan
and Germany, and our allies were the Chinese, including the Chinese-
Communists, and Soviet Russia. And we were being briefed on care-
ful relations with Eussia, diplomatic careful relations, that would pro-
long the good relations we were enjoying, and I believe we all were
pretty happy to have as an ally Soviet Russia, although I never liked
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Larsen, you have testified before the House com-
mittee rather fully about an alleged pro-Communist group in the
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Mr. Morgan. I intend to ask you some questions about that, but
that brings me back again to this question I would like to have ans-
wered if you can, and that is why, after you assmned that Mr. Jaffe
was pro-Communist in his tendencies, yon continued to give to him
restricted, classified documents of the United States Government.
Mr. Larsen. I shall answer that. Then my next question to Mr.
Jaffe was, "Philip, I want to ask you a question. Don't get mad with
me. Are you a Communist or a pro-Communist ?"
To that Mr. Jaffe answered "No, definitely not. I would like to call
myself a Liberal or a Socialist, but I am not a Communist."
And I took his word for it. Since then, when the case broke, Mr.
Dondero and others have pointed out to me the record of Mr. Jaffe,
namely, that he has taught in Communist schools and he has been
affiliated with pro-Communist front organizations. That I did not
know previously. I did not suspect it because I worked in a United
States Government institution where 20 co])ies of his magazine would
come in and would be distributed to evei';^' desk.
Mr. Morgan. You were familiar with the magazine ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I was fairly familiar with the magazine.
Mr. Morgan. Was that the only magazine you and your people
referred to? Was that the only research magazine?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, no. We referred to all magazines, all papers.
Mr. IVloRGAN. From your reading of the Amerasia magazine, did
you conclude that it was a pro-Communist magazine?
Mr. Larsen. I couldn't conclude that very definitely, because there
was never anything in the magazine out-and-out pro-Soviet.