had access might well be made available to the Russians.
Mr. MoRGAX. Was the Soviet Union an enemy of the United States
at that time?
]Mr. VAX' Beurex. It was not.
Mr. Morgan. We have, of course, a great many documents in the
])icture here — some seized at Amerasia headquarters, and others
seized at quarters of other subjects in the case. We aie tiying veiy
diligently to ascertain who may have been parties to the purloimnent
or the abstraction or the embezzlement, as you might like to charac-
terize the manner in which they were taken out of Govermnent offices.
Some of the documents are OSvS documents. As the security officer
in OSS. could you give to us any assistance as to who may have been
responsible for the removal of the documents of OSS?
Mr. VAN Beuren. To the best of my knoAvledge and belief, sir,
and after a very considerable investigation Avhich was made of the
subject, no member of OSS was responsible for passing those docu-
ments into unauthorized hands.
Mr. Morgan. Did you make a separate invest igation concerning that,
or was that left entirely to the FBI ?
Mr. VAN Beurex. We made our own investigation concerning that.
We were constantly trying to maintain our own security.
1196 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. So would you feel reasonably confident, therefore,
in assuring this committee that it was not OSS personnel that might
have been involved in any way in the removal of the documents ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. There was never any evidence that there was any
OSS personnel involved, to my knowledge.
Mr. Morgan. Have you testified fully this morning, Mr. van Beuren,
to your complete knowledge relative to the Amerasia case ? Are there
any other facts you feel you would like to bring to our attention ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir. I think I have testified to my full
knowledge.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. van Beuren, I would like to pass now to a situ-
ation that becomes pertinent only insofar as there has been an implica-
tion that you have been, let us say, "abused" during the course of your
interview, or that perhaps members of this staff have engaged in
improper conduct incident to an interview of you. In fairness to you
T want to say it does not appear, necessarily, that what you may have
said or done has been solely responsible for this, but nevertheless, it
has been given extensive treatment on the radio, in the press, and it also
appears in the Congressional Record.
With that in mind, I do want to ask you a few questions in connec-
tion with a telegram which it appears that you sent to Senator Joseph
McCarthy on June 2, 1950.
Would you indicate for the committee the circumstances under which
you happened to send that wire to Senator McCarthy?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I sent that wire to Senator McCarthy after I
had talked to Mr. Tyler and Mr. Heald, the two gentlemen who are
sitting across the table from me.
Mr. Morgan. On what day was it that you talked with these
gentlemen ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I talked with them on May 23.
Mr. Morgan. Go ahead.
Mr. VAN Bei'ren. We had a very pleasant conversation. There
was certainly no abuse of me as a prospective witness, nor any impolite-
ness, nor any misconduct on the part of either one of these two gentle-
men. They asked me to outline the facts to my knowledge, as have
been gone over today, which I ])roceeded to do. ^ They asked me sub-
sequently to that only two questions, both of which' dealt with cer-
tain aspects of Mr. Bielaski's testimony which recently had been given.
I then asked them if I was to be called before the committee. They
said that that was not in their jurisdiction to determine, that they made
a recommendation to the chairman and he decided, but that on the
basis of what they had told me
Senator McMahon. Wliat you had told them.
Mr. VAN Beuren. What I had told them ; I beg your pardon — they
would recommend that I could add nothing to the facts already before
the committee.
I formed the impression that, and it is just purely my personal im-
pression, the matter was being treated lightly.
Mr. Morgan. Is there anything else tliat you care to add ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. How did you happen to send the wire?
Mr. VAN Beuren. How did I happen to send the wire ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I ISTV'ESTI CATION 1197
Mr. VAN Beuren. Well, 1 luul been reading the newspapers, sir, and
I knew that Senator McCarthy was very much interested in pressing
tliis investigation.
Mr. Morgan. Why did yon wait from INIay 23 to June 2, a period
of 10 days, before you contacted anyone about your concern relative
to the interview?
Mr. VAN Beuuen. Because I wanted to think the matter over, and
decide whether I wanted to send the wire or not.
Mr. MoKGAx. Was the wire sent bj^ you on the assumption you
would not be called as a witness ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I had had no evidence in those 10 days that I was
goinjT to be called.
Mr. Morgan. Had you had any indication that you would not be
called as a witness ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No. sir, I had not.
Mr. Morgan. Did Senator McCarthy contact you prior to the time
3'Ou sent this wire?
Mr. van Beuren. He sent me a wire, yes.
Mr. Morgan. Do 3'ou have a copy of that wire ?
Mr. VAX Betjrex\ No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. What did it say?
Mr. VAX- Beurex-. He said that he would like to have an expression
of mv opinion regarding the talk that I had had with Mr. Heald and
Iklr. Tyler.
Mr. ]\Iorgan. Do you know how he might have known that you had
been interviewed by Mr. Heald and Mr. Tyler?
Mr. VAX- Beurex-. No, I don't.
Mr. Morgax-. Had you discussed your interview with these gentle-
men with anyone connected with Senator McCarthy?
Mr. VAN Beurex. No.
Mr. MoRGAN^. Do you feel, Mv. van Beuren, that Senator McCarthy,
or that this committee, would have been more interested in informa-
tion of this character ?
Mr. VAN Beurex'. Obviously, sir, this committee is the one that is
investigating this affair.
Mr. .Morgan-. What I am interested in knowing is why you did not
send youi- wire to the committee if you felt that, or if you had an im-
pression here that, probably indicated the matter was being treated
lightly.
Mr. VAX Beuren. The only fact I had to go on there, sir, was the
statement made to me by Mr. Tyler and Mr. Heald, that they would
reconnnend that I not be called.
Mr. Morgan. You might be interested to know, INIr. van Beuren,
that these gentlemen have made no such recommendation. You say
they said they would recommend it?
Mr. VAN Beurex. They told me that that was what they would rec-
ommend.
]Mi-. ^[( RGAN. I should like at this point, Mr. Chairman, for the bene-
fit of Mr. van Beuren
Senator McMaiion. Before you leave that, have you finished with
your examination with regard to wliat circumstances inclined Mr. van
Beuren to send this telegram to McCarthy?
Did you have a conversation subsequent to the time McCarthy wired
you wilh Senator McCarthy on the telephone or otherwise?
1198 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
INli-. VAN Bei'Rkn. I had a conversation with him on the telephone on
the morning on whicli I sent him the wire.
Senator McMakox. What w\as the pnrpose of that telephone
conversation ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. The purport of that telephone conversation was
that he asked me whether I had received his wire and was replying to
it.
Senator McMahon. Wliat did yon tell him?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I told him that I had already replied to it.
Senator McMahon. What else did he say?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I think he said "Thank you" and that is all, as far
as I I'ecall.
Senator McMahon. He did not ask you what was going to be in the
wire ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No.
Senator Tydings. Did he make any suggestions as to what the wire
should contain?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Did Senator McCarthy make any suggestions?
No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did anybody — he or anybody talking from his
office?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, neither he nor anybody.
Senator Tydings. He just said, "Are you going to reply to my wire?"
and you said "Yes" and he said "Thank you" and hung up ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. That is the substance of it.
Senator Tydinos. Did anybody come to see you connected with Sen-
ator McCarthy's ojieration?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did anybody come to see you connected with
this committee other than the two men who are here?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes. I have talked with Mr. IMorris.
Senator Tydings. That's right. Now what conversation did you
and Mr. Moi-ris have together ? Give us the full conversation about
that matter. Did he help you to get up the telegram ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. AVas he there when you sent it ?
Mr. van Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. How long had he left before you sent it?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I had not seen Mr. Morris— wait one moment —
I saw Mr. Morris in New York on May 17.
Senator Tydings. Stop right there. On May 17? Where?
Mr. VAN Beuren. At the University Club.
Senator Tydings. What was the ^lature of your visit with Mr.
Morris about tliis case?
Mr. VAN Bki HEN. It was about this case, yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. And what was the subject? What was the gen-
eral sum of the conversation you had with Mr. Morris ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. In essence, sir, just what we have been talking
about today.
Senator Tydings. Did he make any suggestions to you as to what
you might do?
INfr. VAN Beuren. No; he did not.
Senator Tydings. Did you make any to him ?
Mr.'VAN Beuren. No, sir.
STATE DEPART-MEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^•ESTI^.ATION 1 199
Senator Tydinos. Wliat "would you talk about, (hen ^
Mr. VAN Beukkx. He asked me to see him.
Senator TYnixcjs. Yes^
Mr. VAX Ijkukkx. And told me he was of cdunsel for tiiis coiunnt-
tee, and he would like to discuss the case with me.
Senator Tyoixos. Did he make any observation as to what you
mi«»ht or mijiht not conti-ibute to the case if you came as a witness^
Mr. VAN Beukex. I don't honestly recall, sir.
Senator Ttdings. Did he say that he thou<2;ht you ought to be
called?
Mr. VAX Beukex. 1 think he indicated that. yes.
Senator Tydixgs. Did he say what he thought you could testify to
if you were called as a result of yoni- talk?
Mr. VAX'^ Beukex. No. 1 think that he was principally' interested
in seeing what I could testify to.
Senator Tydixgs. All right. Let's leave May IT. When did you
see Mr. Morris again?
JNIr. VAN Beuken. I talked to him on the telephone over that fol-
lowing week end. May 17 was a Wednesday.
Senator Tydix^^gs. That's right.
Senator McMaiion. Is that a diary you have in your hand?
]\rr. VAN Beurex'. No. sir: it is not a diary. It is a date book.
Senator McMahon. Have you any notes of j^our conversations with
Mr. Morris ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir ; I have no notes anywhere of my conversa-
tions with Mr. Morris.
Senator Tydings. Next j'on say j^ou had a telephone conversation
with him over the week end. What was that about? If you had
already discussed the case on the l7th, why did he call you? Tell us
just what happened in that conversation. What was it about?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Well, Mr. Morris and General Donovan had had a
conversation previous to my conversation with Mr. Morris.
Senator Tydings. Were you there ?
Mr. VAN^ Beuren". No, sir; I was not.
Senator Tydings. Who told you that?
Mr. VAN Beuren. General Donovan.
Senator -Tydings. All right. Was this before that week end, or
after that week end ?
Mr. VAN Beurex". That was before that week end, sir.
Senator Tydings. What was the conversation that you and Mr.
Morris had on that week end ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I am doing my best to recollect, Senator.
Senator McMahon. It is only 10 days ago, or 2 weeks ago.
Senator Tydings. You evidently were building up, then, toward the
time you felt you might or might not be called in the case. You were
thinking about the case, so what was your conversation with Mr.
Morris? Certainly if you remember he called you you must have
some recollection of what took place in the conversation.
Mr. VAN Beuren. It dealt, to the best of my recollection, with some
questions that Mr. Morris and General Donovan had discussed, to
which I had told Mr. Morris in our conversation I would see if I could
get an answer.
Senator Tydings. Can you recall what they were?
1200 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATrON
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir ; I don't recall what they were.
Senator Tydings. Did you ever get an answer ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did you ever call him back ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did he ever call you back ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. To the best of my knowledge, that is the last talk
I have had with him.
Senator Tydings. Did you have any communication with him in
any other manner, by letter, by telegram, by emissary, or in any other
fashion ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. So that he asked you to get some evidence, or
answers to certain questions, and you said you would look into it,
and there was no further communication from him or to you ?
j\Ir. VAN Beuren. I told him, of course, in this telephone conversa-
tion, that I had no further information.
Senator Tydings. When did 3'ou see Mr. Morris again, after that
week end, the 21st of May week end ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have not seen him again since that time.
Senator Tydings. Have you communicated with him ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. HaA^e you conmiunicated with him through an
emissary or by letter ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. With Avhom have you communicated from Wash-
ington on this matter?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have conmiunicated with Mr. Fred Woltman, of
the World-Telegram.
Senator Tydings. That's right. With whom else ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have already spoken about Senator McCarthy
and Mr. Morris.
Senator Tydings. Have you visited with Senator McCarthy at any
time within the last 3 months, up to the present?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have never met him, sir.
Senator Tydings. How many times did you talk with him ?
]Mr. VAN Beuren. Once.
Senator Tydings. And it was a very short conversation ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. That is right.
Senator Tydings. You promised you would send him a telegram, did
you?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I did.
Senator Ttoings. Wliat did he ask you to send in the telegram ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. He asked me to send him a telegram, I have said,
giving my reaction to my talk with Mr. Tyler and Mr. Heald, Avhich
matter Mr. Woltman and I had alreadv discussed over the telephone.
Senator Tydings. Did he say Mr. Woltman had told him ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. He did not.
Senator TiT»iNGs. I have not read the telegram, either in the press
or otherwise, but I know something of its purport, because people
have told me generally what is in it. Don't you think you owed it to
the connnittee to give them the information that their employees, in
your opinion, were this, that, or the other, rather than to seAd it to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY nSTVESTIGATION 1201
McCarthy? We have two Republicans on (he connnittee and three
Democrats, and we had interviewed everybody and interrogated every-
body tliat had any remote connection with (his case as fast as we
â– coukl get to them.
Mr. VAX Beiren. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. AVhat more could we have done ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I ajiologize for anj^ rudeness to the committee, sir,
which I assure you was unintended.
Senator Tydixgs. J appreciate (hat, because we want to be fair
with you, but you brought obhxpiy on the committee and a certain
amount of cahunny on the connnittee without (lie couunittee being in
•any way responsible or a party to anything that went on, and even
so far as I can see nothing improper went on, l)ecause when Mr. Bielaski
told us his stor}' there was nothing, substantially, that you could add
to it. AVe woukl be glad to have you,' but I ascertain from a general
conversation with Mr. JNIorgan that you knew the names of nobody in
the State Department who had taken the documents; you could tell us
nothing that would show who took the documents.
What Ave are really after is to get hold of these very wicked peo-
ple Avho either through carelessness or deliberate design siphoned off
information from the State Dej^artment and other departments that
they had no business to do, and if T could get hold of them I would
put them all in jail. But we have to have evidence to do it on.
Mr. VAX Beurex. Yes, sir.
Senator Ttdixgs. And I ascertained that you could not give us any-
thing, and you have told us your story, and in substance — it has been
of some value ; I wouldn't want to say it had no value — it does not put
US in a position to follow a lead that will take us anywhere. That is
one of our troubles here. We can't get those leads.
Go ahead, ^Ir. Morgan.
Mr. MoRGAX. I would like to ask about tliis conversation with Mr.
Woltman. Tell us about that. What was said during the course of
that conversation? Did he bring up the fact tliat you had been inter-
viewed hj representatives on our staff, or did you bring it up?
Mr. VAN Beurex. I believe I brought it up.
Mr. MoRGAX. What did you say? Do you remember?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I said in effect just what I have said here.
Mr. MoKGAX'. You brought up, then, to Mr. A\'oltman the fact that
you had been intervicAved by these men?
Mr. VAX Beurex. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. I would like fV)r you to hear, Mr. van Beuren, on tlie
theory that you ma}- not have heard it, some characterizations of the
import of 3'our telegram as they appear in the Congressional Ivecord
at page 8114 on June 2, 1950, Senator McCarthy speaking:
Then we find the most fantastic situation conceivable, something unheard
ot in any Senate or House committee, unheard of even in a Icanj^aroo court. We
find that two iiivestijrator.^ went up and interviewed Mr. van Beuren and then
c-arae back and said, "He will not be called."
I was anxious to know what happimed at that meeting, knowing that Mr.
van Beuren was the man in charge of the Amerasia case who sent the men
out on the raids, the man who had lived and slept with this case for months.
I was curious why this man was not called, especially in view of the valuable
information he had. So I sent a telegram asking him whether he had been
interviewed, whether he had refused to testify, or just generally what the
situation was. Let me read his telegram. I think it is important. I have had
1202 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION
photostat copies made. Photostats are available to any Senators who want them.
Let me read the telegram to the Senate.
Here is your telegram, dated NeAv York City, June 2, 1950 :
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.
Senate Office Building:
Messrs. Tyler and Heald, attorneys for Tydings committee, called on me
May 23. I have a strong feeling that they were more interested in my reactions
to Mr. Rielaski's testimony than they were in my knowledge of early stages of
the Amerasia case. At no time did they ask for my opinion as security officer
of OSS of the importance of the documents which I saw. I myself volunteered
that I definitely felt their unauthorized possession constituted a threat to na-
tional security in time of war. I told them that if the Tydings committee was
interested in that I would be glad to testify. I could also confirm and supplement
Mr. Bielaskfs testimony, as well as testify to the circumstances which led Gen-
eral Donovan to hand over the documents taken from Amerasia's office to the
Secretary of State in person. They said that on the basis of what I told them
they felt it was not necessary to call me. and they would so recommend. I feel
they were primarily interested in getting information from me which would
contradict or possibly discredit Br. Bielaski's testimony rather than information
that would further their investigation of the Amerasia case.
I wonder if the attorneys would have urged that I be called had I contradicted
Mr. Bielaski.
Aechbold van Beueen.
Now I would like to know specifically, Mr. van Beuren, the basis
for the statement that you felt these gentlemen were primarily in-
terested in getting information from you which would contradict or
possibly discredit Mr. Bielaski's testimony.
Mr. VAN Beuren. The basis, Mr. Morgan, was the fact that the ques-
tionse that they put to me had to do with two matters in Mr. Bielaski's
testimony : One, the matter concerning the A-bomb recommendation;
and, second, a question regarding the internationally known figure
whose name Mr. Bielaski I believe testified to seeing on certain en-
velopes and papers in the Amerasia office.
Senator Tydings. Only once, on one cover, is my recollection I
could be wrong, but I think that is right.
-Mr. VAN Beuren. Those matters were ih^ ones which were primarily
played u]:; by the ])ress and made the headlines. Those were the only
two questions of any importance that these gentlemen put to me
Mr. Morgan. Would it be of any interestlo you to know that these
gentlemen had never seen Mr. Bielaski's testimony, had not heard Mr.
Ijielaskrs testimony, and even to this day have noVread Mr. Bielaski's
testimony?
Senator Tydings. They have not read it; they haven't even seen it.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I jotted down a memorandum at the time. It
has been m the newspapers.
Mr. Morgan. Don't you think tliat is a rather serious indictment of
members of a senatorial investigative staff, to say that they had set
out to contradict or discredit testimony of a witness that appeared
before the committee? ^^
Mr. v.AN Beuren. As I say, I had that impression. IVfr. IMorgan.
Senator Tydings. Were 3;ou willing to broadcast it all over the place
us on the grounds of an impression? Don't you think you were a
little reckless, to put ,t very, very mildly, to putVourself in a position
ovnl!n l" r" '"" -l'.'"""^ the reputations of ihe^e men and going all
aio md the committee when if there had been anv fraud or attempt
to deceive or conceal, would it not have been highlv proper to have
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1203
brouiihl it U) ouv allention^ Tlien. if we did not take action, ycni
would have been justified in doinjj soniethin<j:. Instead of that you
went I'iixht out with a broadsword and slandered everybody, inebi(Un<;-
me. I dicbi't know about it until I had read it in the jiapers. How
would you like to l)e put in that situation?
JMr. VAN Bki'kkx. I wouldn't like it at all, sir.
Senator Tyoinos. How can one conduct a fair invest ijrat ion with
this sort of niisinfornuition goin<r out to the newspapers all over the
country? How can one do it? What nuin do you know of that we
can call to throw any light on this that has not been called? That is
all you can do, is to call witnesses and tell them to testify and then
interrogate them; isn't it?
^Ir. VAN Beurkn. May I ask, sir. in that connection, whether this
committee has called the former FBI agent who was the so-called
reporting officer in this case?
Seiuitor Tyoixgs. We have had the FBI here on the stand, the men
that had charge of the case, all the documents, everything, for days.
We have had all the Justice people; we don't run out every day and
jjut a hulletin on the board every 10 minutes. But what more can
we do than we have done to make a thorough, complete, examination
of this evidence? Will you tell me?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I am sure you have done that, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Then you should innned lately correct it. I think
YOU owe it to Yourself as an honorable man. and I don't believe you
were or are a dishonorable person. I believe you Avere impelled by
some emotion or newspaper prejudice. I think you owe it to us to
say that your impression was whatever way you want to sa}^ it. It
will probably make it worse, but nevertheless I would rathev have it
worse and have the record shoAv it, because I want a thorough investi-
gation by this connnittee. I have told everybody h.ere — I want to say
this — that I want these agents to .<xo after evervthing that will bring
any real fact to light that is i)ertinent to this thing, and there is ]io
man in this whole thing that has lieen cautioned by me to go slow —
none of them. I want them to go all the way and get everybody who
is connected with this thing if we can find them.
But I want to be sure of my facts before I go out and grab every-
body and throw mud all over them, because I could just go out and
say. "I believe this fellow van Beuren had something to do with the
theft of these documents. He was a secui'ity officer, and I believe that
they were shown up.'' I would be just as much within the facts as this