wouldn"t say that the visit, our visit, lasted more than three-quarters
of an hour at the outside. Possibly it was somewhat less. And we
left after Mr. Stettinius had thanked General Donovan for giving him
these documents and was saying that he would take all necessary steps
j)rompt]y, as soon as he had had a chance to talk with his associates
the next day.
"We returned home. General Holmes came Avith us in General
Donovan's car and we all went to our respective homes.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you there, Mr. van Beuren, was there
any tacit or expressed conclusion that the matter then would be han-
dled by the State Department? I mean, that they would get in touch
]\Ir. VAN Beuren. There was no conclusion as to whom the State
Department would get in touch with. There was certainly a con-
clusion that the State Department would handle the matter from
Senator Tydings. They thanked you for your efforts and what you
had turned up and presented. What was the conclusion that you
generally assumed had been reached as a result of this conference?
1188 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. VAN Beuren. The conclusion that I assumed had been reached
was that the State Department would handle the matter itself.
Senator Tydings. They would try to run it down from there on?
Mr, VAN Beuren. They would try to run it down.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you this : At that point did you gen-
tlemen more or less withdraw from it and let the State Department
go on with the investigation, or did you continue with it?
Mr. VAN Beuken. We withdrew entirely, sir. We had found the
source into which our missing document had fallen.
Senator Hickenlooper. What do you mean by your missing docu-
Mr. VAN Beuken. The one that originally started the investigation.
Senator Tydings. OSS had a document that was missing which had
been printed in the magazine and sort of cued and tipped off the whole
thing. That is the document you mean, is it not?
J\lr. VAN Beuren. That's right.
Mr. Morgan. The Thailand document.
Senator Tydings. Did you have occasion to enter the matter again
directly or indirectly insofar as the part of the investigation was
Mr. van Beuren. No, sir. To the best of my knowledge we were
never consulted in any manner from then on about the situation.
Senator Tydings. And, of course, as we all know now and as you
probably knew then, the FBI was called in and took over the active
investigation of the case.
Mr. VAN Beuren. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. You knew that at the time, did you, actually ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I heard it unofficially.
Senator Tydings. You assumed it was so?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I assumed it was so.
Senator Tydings. Of course, we know now it was so.
I don't want to put words in your mouth. I am trying to save time.
You correct me if what I say isn't accurate.
I assume from what you have said that you would not be in position
to testify concretely as to who was actually taking these documents
from the State Department and giving them to the Amerasia people.
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir; I could not testify at all to that. The
first information that I had of that was when the arrests were an-
nounced in the newspaper.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you, then, four or five questions here
very quickly. Do you know how these documents arrived at Amer-
Mr. VAN Beuren. Of my own knowledge ?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Mr. VAN Beuren. Did I know at that time ?
Senator Tydings. Do you know now or did you know then how they
got there? I don't mean from hearsay, but did you turn up anything
that would help us ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Do you know who brought them to Amerasia?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Not except what I have heard.
Senator Tydings. I am only doing this to make up the record.
Mr. VAN Beuren. Not except what I have heard subsequently.
STATE D&PARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNA'ESTIGATION 1189
Senator Tydings. Do you know what happened to them after they
came to Amerasia ? That is, were they passed on to some other Gov-
ernment or agent of ^ome other govermnent, or did they serve some
disk)yal or ulterior purpose so far as you know 'i
INIr. VAX Beuren. The only information I have on that, Senator, is
what I have heard from Mr. Bielaski.
Senator Ty'dixgs. We had Mr. Bielaski here, and I would rather
you testified to what you know, otherwise we are just compoundin<; the
situation. AVhat I would like to get are facts that we can get hold of.
Mr. VAX Bklkkx. I prefaced my remark for that reason.
Senator Tydixgs. Of course, this was a dastardly, terrible thing,
the fincling of all these documents there, and one thing that we ought
to do in connection with this hearing, in my judgment, is not only to
see if anybody who is guilty esca])ed that ought to have been punished,
insofar as we can, but I would like to try to establish some procedure,
some suggestions at least, so that if w^e ever have aiu)ther war, or even
in peacetime, for that matter, during a critical period like we are
now going through, we could devise some security measures that would
at least minimize the possibility of this happening, so far as human
I am going to ask you â€” not now, because it wouldn't be fair to ask
you now â€” from your oavu experieu-ce, having charge of a great many
OSS documents and knownig the importance of security, if you would
take the time in the not too distant future, at your leisure, to make
to this committee some suggestions that we miglit incorporate in our
report that would tighten up in i^eacetime and in wartime the whole
surveillance of documents and the custody of documents.
Another thing I would like you to do, I would like you to see if
there isn't a better way of classifying matter. For example. Me both
know that a great many things are marked "Classified*' that ought
not to be classified. We know that that tends to deteriorate the quality
of the things that are classified, because people get careless if every-
thing is marked classified. They say "Oh, well," and therefore some-
thing that is highly secret is probably devalued a great deal from what
its real worth as a secret document would be.
I would like, if you have the time, and it would be appreciated if
you would "give us, too. any kind of fornuila that we might utilize in
connection with the future classification of documents, either in time
of peace or war.
I would also appreciate it, because I would like to see something
constructive come out of this hearing, if you could, out of your own
experience as a security oflicer for OSS, make any suggestions to
prevent a recurrence of this situation insofar as it occurs to you.
I will be very much indebted to you if you will give us that. I would
like to put it in the record. If you could prepare a statement, not too
lonir, but giving us the points when you have time, I will be very
grateful to yon. Do you think you could do so ?
Mr. VAX Beurex. I should try to do so to the very best of my
Senator Tydixgs. What we ought to do to treat this wound is to
prevent another wound from being inflicted. It might be more im-
portant in the future than it has been in the past, at some critical
1190 STATE DiEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATrON
So that, in sum, your connection with this matter stems from the
fact that Mr. Biehaski was employed, he made his report, you turned
over your information to the State Department, from which period
the State Department and FBI took over. Is that about a fair
summary of it ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Do you have some questions, Senator Hicken-
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. van Beuren, this Thaihind document
you spoke about, which was missing, your first knowledge of that being
out of custody at least was when it appeared in Amerasia, is that
Mr. VAN Betjren. Yes, sir ; when not a transcript but when a sum-
mary of it, so to speak, appeared in Amerasia magazine.
Senator Hickenlooper. An.d you recognized it was the docmnent
which had been developed by OSS ?
Mr. VAN Betjren. I did not personally do so.
Senator Hickenlooper. I mean it was recognized in OSS.
Mr. VAN Beuren. In OSS.
Senator Hickenlooper. That was called to your attention?
Mr. VAN Beuren. By the man who had prepared it originally.
Senator Hickenlooper. That document, when OSS developed it,
what hands did it go through ? In other words, did you give a coi'ty
of it to the State Department? Did you give a copy of it to the
military ? When I say "you," I mean OSS.
Mr. VAN Beitken. The OSS? It had. sir, a fairly wide authorized
dissemination in the Government, not onlv in our own oroanization,
where it went to several departments from its original source, which
was the Far East Division of Research and Analysis, but also one or
more copies were authorized for dissemination to State, War, and
Navy. I am sure of those three; I am not sure of my recollection,
but Treasury and Censorship may have been in on the distribution
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you know wliat officials in the State,
War, and Navy Departments would have direct charge of that docu-
ment when it got there?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir; I would have no knowledge of their in-
ternal routino; after it reached them.
Senator Hickenlooper. And at the time you seized these docu-
ments, among which was the one you were looking for of your own,
and I am asking because I was not here at the beginning of this so I
may be repeating something, were there any persons in the Amerasia
office or in the place you found these documents ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir; there were no persons except OSS agents.
Senator Hickexloopek. Excuse me ; I should have made that clear â€”
any persons connected witli Amerasia or anv other persons outside of
the OSS agents?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No.
Senato)- Hickenlooper. Were y(;u ever, or so far as you know was
OSS ever, contacted for information with regard to these documents
or with regard to the proceedings in connection with the seizure of
the documents by the FBI or by any units of Army Intelligence or
Naval Intelligence or the ]Military intelligence establishments after
you had turned these over to the State Department?
STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1191
Mr. VAN Beuren. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. So that so far as you know, is this correct:
Tlie only repoit that OSS made about these documents was directly to
Mr. Steltinius. Secretary of State?
Mr. VAN Beuken. So far as I know, that is correct, sir.
I would like to add just one more item to that. I believe I have been
toldâ€” I have no personal knowledge of thisâ€” that meetings were held
the follo^ying morning in Secretary Ilohnes" oflice to discuss proced-
ures in this matter, at which :Ma jor Monigan, to whom I have referred,
Senator Hickexlooper. I see.
But to all practical purposes, this episode of a day or two, and any
discussion afterward, ended so far as the OSS pursuing the matter
any furthw, or being later contacted?
Mr. VAX Beurex. That is correct.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. van Beuren, at that time how would
you classif}^ or rate the importance of this particular document of
OSS that you were concerned with, so far as it being of important
military or national significance and public security was concerned?
Mr. VAX Beurex. The particular document with which we were lirst
Senator Hickexlooper. That is the Thailand document, I under-
Mr. VAX' Beurex. The Thailand document, as I understand it, sir,
was one of a continuing series of studies on Thailand. It dealt in
general with the conflict of interest between the various allied nations
in tlie Thailand situation, particularly tlie British and ourselves. I
would not be able, not being a student of far eastern affairs or those
matters, to evaluate its importance in that regard. Certainly as one
of a series it had a very definite importance.
Senator Hickexlooper. j\lay I ask it this way: At the time, or
now â€” I want to make the question as broad as possible â€” do you or
do you not consider that this document contained information which
would be valuable information to an enemy of the T'^^nited States if it
fell into the hands of an enemy of the United States, and could it be
detrimental to United States interests in the hands of an enemy?
Mr. VAN "Beurex. The answer is "Yes, sir," to both of those ques-
tions. I do so consider it.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you care to, or are you sufficiently fa-
miliar with the other documents which j^ou seized, to say whether
any of these documents were documents that in your opinion would
have been of aid or ben.efit to an enemy of the United States with the
possibility of detriment to the United States, being in the hands of
an enemy ?
Mr. VAX Beurex. Of the 12 or 15 documents which I saw, sir, which
Mr. Bielaski brought to me, to the best of my recollection â€” and I have
been recollecting as far as I can â€” one was a document dealing with
(lerman order of battle.
Senator Tyuixgs. AA'hat do you mean by that?
Mr. VAX Ijurex. Disposition of German forces.
Senator Tyoixgs. Where?
Mr. VAX Beurex. In Germany.
Senator Tvnixos. At a given date, do you mean?
Mr. VAX Beurex. At a gi\ en date.
68970 â€” 50 â€” pt. 1- 76
1192 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
A second document, of which I recall no details, was marked : "For
the attention of the Director of Naval Intelligence only." The bal-
ance of the dicuments, according to the best of my recollection, dealt
entirely with far eastern matters, principally political and economic
developments. I do not recall any of those far eastern documents
which dealt with battle order or naval dispositions or those matters.
Senator Hickenlooper. With regard to the documents as you recall
them, was it your opinion then, or it is now â€” or what was your opin-
ion then or what is your opinion now; I will put it that way, as to
whether or not these documents that you recall would have â€” I am
asking for your opinion as to whether or not they would have been
of benefit to an enemy of the United States, with a corresponding or
comparable detriment to the United States if they had fallen into
the hands of an enemy ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. My opinion, and I cannot state it too strongly,
is that they would have been of benefit to an enemy of the United
States and a detriment to tlie United States.
Senator Hickenlooper. Let me ask you this. I don't know how far
I would want to probe this particular question, but I will ask you
a rather general question first and make up my mind a little later.
Did you at any time, either prior to the seizure of these documents, at
the time of the seizure, or afterward, come into possession of any di-
rect evidence that any person then in the State Department or con-
nected with the State Department had anything to do with the de-
livery to Amerasia of classified documents? I am just asking whether
information came directly to you.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I understand the question to be, did I come into
possession of any such direct evidence?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir ; I did not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know whether there is any source
within OSS or any other official Government agency that did come into
possession of any direct evidence that any individuals connected with
the State Department had anything to do with the delivery of classified
documents to Amerasia ? I am not asking you for just your guess on
the thing, or any rumor. I am asking for some place where we
might be able to go to investigate
Senator Tydings. Direct knowledge ; something we can get hold of.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I would assume, sir, that since the Federal Bureau
of Investigation ari'ested John Stewait Service and Larsen and Roth,
all of whom were connected with the State Department, that they had
Senator Hickenlooper. But so far as you are personallj^ concei-ned,
or the OSS personnel, so far as you personally know, you did not
acquire direct evidence on your own investigation that any person in
the State Department had anything to do with transferring documents
or delivering documents of a classified nature to Amerasia or any of
its personnel ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was OSS, so far as you know â€” that is, you
or any other person connected with OSS â€” contacted or interviewed
either prior to or any time thereafter, the arrests of these persons in
the Amerasia case with regard to evidence or the giving of evidence,
or what evidence you could give? In other words, did anybody come
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LWESTIGATrON 1 1 03
:aml interview you or interview anybody in OSS to your know]ed<^e
about any facts or circumstances wliich nii<j;lit be used as evidence in a
trial or prosecution of either the people wlio were arrested oi- (he
possibility of arrest?
Mr. VAN Beurex. So far as I know, not, sir, with the single exception
that I myself was contacted quite recently by Mr. Service and Mr.
Service's attorney. By quite recently, the date was April 27 of this
year. I was contacted as to Avhether or not 1 had any iulormatioii in
connection with Mr. Service's loyalty hearing.
Senator IIickexloopek. And did they make any representations of
any kind to you at that time, or what was the nature of that contact ?
^Ir. VAN Beuren. The nature of the interview was simply this, sir,
that thej^ asked me whether I had known of Mr. Service during this
period we are talking about, or prior to his arrest, and I told tliem
that I had never heard Mr. Service's name until I had read it in the
newspaper. I gave them an outline of the facts that I have testitied
to here as to ni}' connection with the Amerasia matter.
Senator HicKENLOorER. I ar.i sorry my background is not the best on
this. There might be some other questions I would want to ask Mr.
van Beuren. At the moment, that is all I have.
Senator Tydings. ]\Ir. ]Morgan, do you have some questions ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, a few.
For our record, Mv. van Beuren, am I to understand that you were
not interviewed by representatives of the FBI either before or after
Mr. VAX Beuren. Either before or after the arrests? I was itot in-
terviewed before or after. I omitted one part of what I should have
answered to Senator Hickenlooper's question.
Subsequent to ni}- conversation here in April, just past, with Mr.
Service and ]Mr. Service's attorney, two representatives of the FBI
called on me at the request of the Loyalty Board.
Senator Tydings. That was in 1950?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes. sir, within the last -3 weeks.
Mr. Morgan. Weren't you interviewed on June 21, 1945, by Special
Agent Oscar Keep, of the FBI ?
I\Ir. VAN Beuren. I may have been, Mr. Morgan. It would have
been in the course of regular business. I have no independent recollec-
tion of it.
Mr. Morgan. I mean, interviewed specifically in connection with
jour knowledge of the Amerasia case and your knowledge concerning
the documents in the case?
]Mr. AAN Beuren. I have no recollection of it. I have since been told
by my associates, although I have no recollection of this either, that
subsequent to the arrests a number of OSS documents were bi'ought
over to the Oflice of Strategic Services by agents of the FBI for identi-
fication, with the understanding at least on the part of those who saw
them that they had been found in the Amerasia offices, and we were
asked to identify them and to check their dissemination and give the
facts about them. That, however, was handled n(;t by me pers(nially.
That was handled by my deputy. I had no recollection of this until I
spoke to him.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. As I understand your testimony, Mr. van Beuren,
at the meeting, I believe, at Mr. Stettinius' home, reference was nuule
1194 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY EVVESTIGATTON
to the fact that this situation miglit clear up something that had been
Mr. VAX Beui:i:n. Things that had been plaguing them.
Mr. jMorgan. What was meant by that, do you know ?
Mr. VAN Beueen. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Was it your understanding that that might indicate
that there had been other leakage of information?
Mr. VAN Beuren. It could liave lieen so understood.
Mr. Morgan. Up to this time had you in OSS had any problem
in that respect?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes; we had had some problems.
Mr. Morgan. Had you made investigations concerning them?
Mr. VAN Beuren. We had.
Mr. Morgan. And had you developed any information as to anyone
in OSS who might have been active in abstracting or removing docu-
Mr. VAN Beuren. No ; we had not developed any such information.
Mr. Morgan. We have had a nasty word tossed into this proceeding,
Mr. van Beuren, in connection witli this Amerasia case, the word "fix."
I would like to know if you have any knowledge concerning a possible
fix, or a fix, in connection with this case.
Mr. VAN B'euren. I have not, sir.
Senator JMcMahon. Could I see Mr. van Beuren's letter that he
addressed to the committee? Didn't I see in the press that Mr. van
Beuren addressed a letter to the committee subsequent to some of you
gentlemen interviewing him ?
Mr. Morgan. You may refer, Senator, to a vrire he sent Senator
McCarthy, and I, of course, v,'Al want to interrogate him a little about
Senator McMahon. That did ]iot come to the committee? Is that
Mr. Morgan. I have a copy as reported in the Congressional Record.
Senator McIMahon. I want to look at it in connection with this
testimony that is apparently now being examined into.
Mr. INloRGAN. Have you given us, JVIr. van Beuren, the full extent
of your knowledge concerning the nature of the documents, their
significance in your opinion?
Mr. VAN Beuren. If I have not so stated I would like to state, sir,
that all the documents which I saw were classified. My recollection is
that the classifications ran from "Confidential" on up to "Top Secret,"
I think I have already said that tlie documents had been originally
prepared by various Government departments, the documents I saw,
including OSS, War, Navy, and State. I know I have said that every
document that did originate in other than the State Department was
an official State Department copy.
Mr. Morgan. Did any of these documents relate in any way to the
atomic bomb ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Of the ones I saw, no, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Do you have any knowledge about the possibility of
one of them relating to the A-bomb ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. The only knowledge I have about that is what
has been â€” I have since discussed, long since discussed,, with Mr.
Bielaski, about a document which he recalled seeing dealing with
A Bombing Plan for Japan, or some such title.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1 1 95
Mr. MoiiGAN. At any time, Mr. van Bi-uivu, did 3011 coiisidiT any
of these documents to be relative to the atomic bonib, or did anyone
in OSS to your knowledge at any time so consider tliem?
Mr. VAN Bkikkx. Xo, sir; certainly nol. I ccrtainlv had no knowl-
edge of the atomic bomb at that time.
Mr. MoKGAN. In connection with (lie documents and the character-
ization of them, T certainly don't want to get into a legal field on
this, and I presume you are not a lawyer
Mr. VAX Beurex. I am not, sir.
Mr. MoKGAx. Under the Federal espionage statutes, it is my under-
standing that documents to constitute a violation must be related to
the national defense. Did you regard these documents which you
saw as nati(mal defense documents?
Mr. VAN Beurex. I believe I would so characterize them, sir. Xot
being a lawyer, I do not know what the limitations of national de-
fense were, but we Mere at war at that time, and I would assume that
any classified Government document from a war agency would deal
with the national defense.
^h'. MoHGAX. Was it vour understanding, oi- have vou been under
tlie im}n'ession, that these documents were to be utilized by an enemy
of the United States?
]Mr. VAX Beurex. At that time, no.
Mr. ISIoRGAX. Was it your understanding that it was to be used by
any foreign nation?
Mr. VAX Beurex. My answer to that would be, sir, that a very
cursory investigation of Amerasia's affairs indicated that Mr. Jatfe
had distinct Communist connections.
Mr. MoKGAX. "What are we to infer from that in connection with
the question just asked?
Mr. VAX Beurex. Well, I would assume, therefore, and it is nothing
more than an assum])tion, that any documents to which Mr. Jaffe