telegram was. But I wouldn't do that to you, although I would really
liave more grounds to do it on than you had to do it to this committee.
Senator Hickexluopku. ill". Chairman, may I ask Mr. van Bvureu
a question?
ifr. va7i Beuren. you were a security oHicer in OSS: were you not?
Mr. VAX Beirex^. Yes. sir.
Senator IIickexlooper. The United States was at war at the time?
Mr. VAX' Bel^rex'. Yes, sir.
Senator Htckexlooper. You came into diivct knowledge that some-
body had purloined a large number of liighly secret or classified docu-
ments in the presence of wai" when our Nation was in danger^
Ml-. VAX Beurex'. Yes, sir.
1204 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION
Senator HicKENLOorER. I would like to ask your opinion. Do you
think anybody was jDrosecnted properly for that treason and traitor-
ism that occurred in the Amerasia case? I am just asking you for
your opinion.
Senator ]Mc]Mahox. Is the gentleman a law3^er ?
Senator Hickeistlooper. He is a security officer.
Senator Mc]Maiion. AVhat difference does that make?
Senator Hicxexlooper. I am trying to find out whether Mr. van
Beuren had some pretty deep-seated feelings of patriotism about what
should be done in time of war or in connection with cases where these
documents were surreptitiously taken out of their official position.
Senator Tydtxgs. I am not going to object, but I don't think we
are really helping ourselves. I abuse it: we all do. I don't believe
we are helping ourselves by putting in the record a lot of opinions^
because I can give you my own opinion, which was that I think that
this is a terrible thing, and I could go on and put in adjectives and
everj'thing else, but I don't think that is what we are after. We are
after facts ; but, if you want to testify, go ahead.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I would like to say very deeply that I was deeply
shocked at the final disposition of the case! I thought that the FBI
did an admirable job in apprehending those who were apparently
guilty of it, and it was what happened subsequently to that that made
me feel as deeply as I do.
I would also like to say that, after talking with you gentlemen and
meeting the chairman. Senator Tydings, and hearing him tell me
across this table of his deep feelings in the matter, my impression has
completely changed.
(Further discussion was off the record.)
Senator McMahon. I have some questions that I want to ask on
the record.
How long have you known Mr. Woltman?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have known Mr. Woltman slightly for about 3
months.
Senator McMaiton. You met him in connection with this case?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I met him in connection with this case.
Senator McMahon. How manv meetings have you had with Mr.
Woltman?
Mr VAN Beuren. I have never met Mr. Woltman personally. I
have talked with hnn over the telephone.
Senator McMaiion. How long have vou known Mr Morris «
Mr. VAN Beuren. How long have I known Mr. Morris? The 17th
ot May was the first time I met him.
Senator ^McMahon. Who made tlie contact between Mr. Morris and
yourseli?
JVIr. VAN Beuren. General Donovan
Senator McMahon. Wliat did the general sav when he called you
m that he was an investigator for the Tydings committee ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. What did Mr. Morris say?
Senator McMahon No; what did General Donovan say?
Mr. VAN Beuren. General Donovan said he was one of the counsel
tor the Tydings committee.
Senator McM^vhon. And he appeared and talked with vou in that
capacity f "
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION ] 205
Mr. VAN Beukkx. He iutroducod himself as counsel for tlie Republi-
can minority.
Senator McMviiox. That is a matter that I think will have to be
taken up Avith the full connnittee. We have no counsel for tlu^ Re-
publican minoril}-. i\lr. Morris is one of tlie counsel for this com-
mittee.
Now, in your conversation with Mr. Morris, you went into every
cietail of your knowledge of the Amerasia case?
Mr. VAX Beukkx. Yes, sir.
Senator ^McMaiion. Did he take notes of that?
Mr. VAX Beukex. Xo.
Senator McMajiox. But you i>ave him the complete, whole story
so far as you remembered it ?
Mr. VAX Beukex". Yes, sir; I don't believe as fully as I have given
it to you gentlemen today.
Senator McMaiiox. But no matei'ial fact that you gave us was not
given to him? You gave him everything that was material?
Mr. VAX" Beurex". That's right.
Senator McMahgx'. And you know that he was counsel — at least,
so he said — for the Republican members of this connnittee?
Mr. VAN Beurex". He said he was counsel for the committee, Sena-
tor; ves.
Senator McMaiiox'. Xot just the Republican minorit}^?
Mr. VAX'^ Beurex". I Avouldn't want to leave the impression that lie
indicated that he was only for the Republican minority.
Senator McMahox. I see. So you had reason to believe that every-
tliing that you said to him was reported otlicially to the membership
of this committee. That is a reasonable assumption; is it not?
Mr. VAX Beurex". I have made no assumption in that regard what-
ever. Senator, because my first contact Avith it, v\-itli anybody from this
committee, was that contact.
Senator ]McMahox". Mr. van Beuren, you did not refer to the fact
that you had had an interview wnth counsel for this committee before
May 23 in your telegram to Senator McCarthy.
Ml". VAX Beurex. That is right.
Senator McMaiiox. Why did you not refer to that in the telegram ?
He, too, was an investigator for this committee. That was rather
regrettable ; Avas it not ?
]Mr. VAX' Beurex. He made no representation to me, sir, that he was
calling on behalf of the committee.
Senator Mc^Iahox. Oh: and that is the reason why you did not
p\it it in the telegram. Well uoav, I thought that a moment ago you
said you didn't want to leave the impression that he had represented
himself as representing the minority alone, because you understood
that he came as representing the committee.
Mr. VAX Betjrex'. That is correct, sir; yes.
Senator McMaiiox. You talked with him as a committee in-
vestigator?
Mr. VAN Beurex'. I didn't talk to him as an investigator, sir. I
talked to him at General Donovan's request after he had talked to
General Donovan, to go over Avith him certain of the matters that he
and General Donovan had discussed.
Senator IVIcMahox". Yes. But you knew that he was counsel for
this connnittee ;f
1206 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes, sir; that is right.
Senator McMaiion. And you talked with him as counsel for this
committee ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahox. That is true?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes.
Senator McMahon. Now, you didn't see fit to say to Senator Mc-
Carthy in your telegram that you had had two interviews with counsel
for this connnittee, did you?
Mr. van Beueen. I did not say it ; no.
Senator McMahon. It might have left a slightly different impres-
sion from the one you sought to leave, might it not ?
Mr. van Beuren. I would have said so had I thought of it.
Senator McMahon. Yes. It wasn't suggested that you say it, was
it, Mr. van Beuren?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator IMcMahon. But it was suggested that you send a telegram
concerning your interview with Messrs. Tyler and Heald ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have answered that, sir.
Senator McMahon. I know you have.
You tried to give it a "jet assist," is the way it appears to me — the
old rocket take-off.
Have these two gentlemen been sworn ?
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Heald has; Mr. Tyler has not. I would like to
request that he be sworn.
Senator McMahon. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you
give in the matter now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Tyler. I do.
TESTIMONY OF L. L. TYLEU, ASSISTANT COUNSEL TO THE SUBCOM-
MITTEE APPOINTED UNDER SENATE RESOLUTION 231
INIr. Morgan. Will you state your full name, please?
Mr. Tyler. Lyon L. Tyler, Jr.
Mr. Morgan. What is your present employment?
Mr. Tyler. I am assistant counsel to this subcommittee.
Mr. ISIoRGAN. In the course of your work with this committee have
you had occasion to interview Mr. Archbold van Beuren?
INIr. Tyler. I have.
Mr. Morgan. When Avas that interview ?
Mr. Tyler. May 23, 1950.
Mr. Morgan. Where ?
Mr. Tyler. In iSh: ^an Beuren's office at 6 East Thirty-ninth Street,
New York City.
]\rr. Morgan. As a result of that interview, did you submit a memo-
randum to me as chief counsel of this connnittee concerning the in-
formation giA'Cn you and Mr. Heald, who accompanied you, I believe,
on this investigation?
Mr. Tvler. Yes, we submitted it.
Mr. Morgan. Would you read that memorandum into our record
at tliis time, please? What is the date of the memorandum?
Mr. Tyler. It is dated iSIay 25, 1950.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1207
Memorandum fob the Files
lie interview with Archbolcl van Beuren.
Mr. Tyler and Mr. IleaUl interviewed .Mr. van Beuren on Tuesday, May 23, at
his office in the Cue Buildiuir, East Thirty-ninth Street, New York City. Mr.
van Beuren was advised that we desired information as to his lvnowh'd,i;e (tf the
xVmerasia case upon wliich the subcommittee could decide whether it would
call him as a witness.
Mr. van Beuren save the following account of his connection with the Amerasia
case. Mr. van Beuren stated that he was Chief of the I'.ranch of Security for
the Ollice of Strateiric Services at the time that the case broke. To the best of
his recollection, around February 27 or 28. 104."). a member of tbe liesearch and
Analysis Branch of ( )SS, whose name he can't remcmiicr, came to see him.
This man bad a copy of the magazine, Amerasia, and also a copy of an OSS
report in Thailand. This report was restricted but did have a rather extensive
circulation among Government oflices. The OSS man who was the author of
the OSS report had l)een reading Amerasia as a part of bis as.signment. He
noticed that an article in the magazine was written in the fashion very similar
to that of the official report. In some cases the quotations were almost directly
lifted and the tenor and recommendations of the report identical. The OSS
man advised IMr. van Beuren that whoever wrote the magazine article must
have had access to the official report. Mr. van Beuren stated that he knew
nothing of tbe magazine Amerasia, but reported the matter to General Donovan.
Mr. van Beuren recalled that there had lieen a lot of leaks of Government ma-
terial at that time and therefore General Donovan had become very .strict. Gen-
eral Donovan directed van Beuren to initiate an investigation to determine if
any OSS documents had come into unauthorized hands. ]\Ir. van Beuren then
came to New York around March 1. 194.">. and talked to ^Ir. Bielaski, who was
the chief investigator. Mr. Bielaski then went to work on tbe case, upon which
matter he has testified and of wliich Mr. van Beuren only has second-hand
knowledge.
On ]\Iarch 11, 1945, Mr. Bielaski came to Washington eai-ly in the morning.
He placed on van Beuren's desk some 10 to 15 documents that he had found in
the Amerasia office the previous night. Bielaski told van I'.euren that he didn't
write a report because he was afraid no one would believe him, the affair was so
fantastic, but instead brought the documents down personally.
Mr. van Beuren's recollection of the documents is tliat they varied in number
from 10 to 15 and were documents of various classitications. They came from
the Navy, State, OSS and Censorship, but all bore a State Department mark
which meant that even if the document originated elsewhere, it had been a
State Department copy. The matter struck Mr. van Beuren as being extremely
important, particularly in view of the large number of additional documents
which Mr. Bielaski stated he had found in the Amerasia office. He assured
Mr. van Beuren, however, that there were so many that tl'.e ones he had taken
would not be missed.
Senator McMahon. If there are any points at which yon do not
aerree with any of this statement as it has been written, I wish yon
wonld liold np yonr hand.
Mr, AAX Beukex. I have one that I have noted.
Mr. TyIjER (reading) :
Mr. van Beuren then called to his office I\ra.i. J. J. :>ronigan, one of General
Donovan's legal assistants. The three of them went over tbe jiapcrs and the
facts of the situation and all agi-eed as to its seriousness. Mr. van Beuren and
Ma.1or Monigan then went up to see General Donovan and Mr. Bielaski returned
to New l''ork. They saw General Donovan that afternoon, gave him the papers
and discussed the case in complete detail with him. General Donovan decided
to bring tbe case immediately to Secretary Stettinius' attontion and called him
to make an appointment. By the time the appointment w;is made Major Moni-
gan, Mr. van Beuren and General Donovan finally got to the Secretary's apartment
about 10 : 30 p. m.
Mr. van Beuren stated that this was the last that he had anything to do with
the affair officially and as far as he knew was also the last of OSS's connection
with the affair with the exception that Major Monigan went over to the State
Department the nest day to discuss the case with their people.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 77
1208 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INl'ESTIGATION
In response to a specific question as to the details of the documents Mr. van
Benren repeated that all that he could remember was that all were classified ;
all but one dealt with affairs in the Far East; one document (which Mr. van
Beuren says he seems to recall) had to do with the German battle order. Mr.
van Beuren commented that he had particularly remembered this document
because it had been different from all the rest and he wondered why no one else
ever mentioned seeing this document. The bulk of the material was of a political
and economic nature and did not deal with the conduct of the war.
Mr. Heald asked Mr. van Beuren concerning the recent statements by Biela.skj
as to the atomic bomb reference, found among the papers. Mr. van Beuren
stated that some 2 or .3 years later, but not until after the Hobbs committee
investigation. Mr. Bielaski hnd stattnl tliat he often wondered what the docu-
ment headed "A Bombing Program for Jaimn" meant and whether the letter
"A" had been in quotation n arks or not. Mr. van Beuren stated that to the
best of his recollection Mr. Bielaski mentioned this document the morning of
March 11, 1945.
Mr. Heald also asked Mr. van Beuren about Mr. Biela.ski's statement to the
press about the unknown person involved in this case. Mr. van Beuren .stated
he knew to whom Mr. Bielaski was referring and he also knew how he got the
information. Mr. Bielaski had oi'iginally told him he had seen some names on
some manila envelopes in the office of AJnierasia and the manila envelopes con-
tained photo.stats of the Government documents. Mr. van Beuren stated these
names were not taken down by him so that they had not been turned over to
the State Department. Mr. van Beuren added tliat no over-all memo was ever
prepared in OSS.
Robert L. He.vi.d.
This was \Tritten with my concurrence and review.
Senator McMahon. Mr. van Benren has, I think, two corrections.
Mr. VAN Bp:i'ren. I have two minor points, two observations. In
one of the early parag:raphs you report tlie original report reproduced
in Amerasia was classified "secret," not "restricted"; and second, there
is a contradiction in your memorandum repirdinff the "A bomb''
question, because in one spot you say that I testified that Mr. Bielaski
had talked to me about it after he had testified before the Hobbs com-
mittee, and then I think the last sentence was to the effect that I said
that he had told me about that on the day of March 11. He did not
tell me about it on March 11, as I have said just before.
Mr. Ti'LER. I was going to say that, as I recall, the forepart of
that paragraph is correct, and we could have better said here that
Mr. van Beuren, to the best of his recollection, said that there were
documents of that type. Do you recall that being our discussion ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. That would be correct, that Mr. Bielaski had
reported that there were documents of that type, but not specifically
"A bomb." He made no connection then with the A bomb informa-
tion, is the point.
Mr. Heald. The language means to say that he first connected the
atom bomb after the Hobbs committee, but the document entitled the
"A Bomb" was mentioned, but not in connection with the A bomb.
Senator McMahon. With those two exceptions, is this a correct
report of the interview that you had ?
Mr. van Bkuren. Yes, sir.
Senator INIcMahon. Now I am going to put this on the record.
Senator Tydings said a lot of what he said off the record. I am not
gomg to make any protestations of what my intentions are with re-
gard to this case. I will let mv actions speak for that.
But T. too, resented the slander that you saw fit, and the libel vou
saw fit. to put on these tAvo gentlemen and upon me as a member of
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1 209
this committee. In view of that memorandum, and in view of what
you liave said to Senator Tydings, I am rereading this telegram :
Messrs. Tyler and HeaUl, attorneys for Tydinjis committee, called on me May
23. I have a strong feeling that they were more interested in my reactions tO'
Mr. Bielaski's testimony than they were in my knowledw of early stages of the
Amerasia case. At no time did they ask for my ojiinion as seciirity officer of
OSS of the Importanec of the documents which I saw. I myself volunteered
tiiat I (iefinitely felt tlieir unauthorized jjossession constituted a threat to na-
tional security in time of war. I (old tht>ni tliat it' tiie Tydings conuuitttH' wjis
interested in that I would he j^lad to testify. I could also contirm and supijle-
uient Mr. liielaski's testimony, as well as testify to the circumstances which
led General L^onovan to hand over the documents taken from Amerasia's office
to the Secretary of State in person. They said tliat on tlie hasis of what I t<dd
them tliey felt it was not necessary to call me and they would so recommend.
1 feel they were primarily interested in gettinjx information from me which
would contradict or ])ossibly discredit Mr. Bielaski's testimony rather than
information that would further their investigation of the Amerasia case.
I wonder if the attorneys woidd have urged that I be called had I contradicted
Mr. Bielaski.
Are you now prepared to endorse it ?
Mr. VAN Beurex. No. sir. As I previously told Senator Tydingsr,
after appearing before you gentlemen I withdraw any implications
of that sort.
Senator McMahon. I want to say to you that I think (hat is a very
forthright and decent thing to do. I honor you for it.
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
jNfr. MoiMJAN. May I contiinie?
Mr. Tyler, in the course of the interview with Mr. x-aw Beiiren, da
you recall having asked him any questions?
Mr. Tyler. Yes; and as he told the story, of course, questions were
interjected to fill it out and to clarify points, and so forth, so that
there were questions tliroughout the interview, sometimes of a minor
type, others to guide the story.
Mr. Morgan. Did you make any observation to Mr. van Beureii
concerning whether he would or would not be called as a witness
before this committee ?
Mr. Tyler. He asked if he would be called. We told him that that
was up to the subcommittee to make the decision as to whether he
Mould be called as a witness. T liave no recollection of having made
an observation that he would not be called.
Mr. Morgan. Did you make any recommendation upon your returii
to Washington that Mr. van Beuren not be called ?
Mr. Tyler. No: I did not.
Mr. MoRcjAN. Did you do anything by way of characterizing his
< bservations during the interview, apart from submitting this memo-
randum which you have read this morning?
Mr. Tyler. No: I did not.
]\rr. Morgan. I would like to ask you, Mr. Tyler, were you at one
time associated with the FBI ?
Mr. Tyler. I was for V\ years.
Mr. Morgan. During the period of your 13 yeai-s with the FBI
has anyone at any time ever suggested that you endeavor to discredit
or contradict the testimony of any witness that might be under
consideration incident to the Bureau's work, or in any other cou-
nection ?
Mr. Tyler. No, they haven't.
1210 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTV'ESTTGATTON
Mr. Morgan. This is the first time, is that correct?
Mr. Tyler. That is right. If I understand your question properly,
it is, is tliis the first time I have been, shall I say, charged with having
indicated that a witness should be not called or discredited in any
way ? This is the first time.
Mr. Morgan. This is the first time ? Do you have any other obser-
vations you would care to make, Mr. Tyler, concerning your interview
with Mr. van Beuren or concerning the discussion here this morning?
Mr. Tyler. Well, I don't think I would. I think that the observa-
tions in the memorandum and what is on the record so far speaks for
itself.
I might say that in no case, as to any witness that is being considered
before this committee, have we been in the habit of making recom-
medations as to whether they are or are not to be called. We felt that
that was a matter of policy for the subcommittee and that we were to
write in the facts and lay them before the subcommittee through the
counsel, and they would then come to a decision as to who would be
called and in what order.
When we talked to Mr. van Beuren, we asked him to give us the
whole story, which he did. Our questions were designed only to
amplify that story and make it clear to us. We were not familiar,
as has been said before, with Mr. Bielaski's testimony, nor any testi-
mony, so far as I am concerned, of any witness in executive session,
before today, so absolutely we had, of course, no intention of trying to
get Mr. van Beuren to discredit Mr. Bielaski as such. We were inter-
ested only in the facts, whether they would corroborate or whether they
would not corroborate, any other witnesses.
Mr. Morgan. Did you regard the matter lightly, Mr. Tyler, at the
time you interviewed Mr. van Beuren ?
Mr. Tyler. No, I certainly did not, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Were you under any instruction, or were you impelled
in any way, to so disregard it ?
Mr. Tyler. No, sir. The only instructions we had on that were that
he was a logical person to be interviewed to find out what he knew
in the case.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. HEALD, ASSISTANT COUNSEL TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED UNDER SENATE RESOLUTION 231
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Heald, you are also assistant counsel to this com-
mittee, is that correct ?
INIr. Heald. Tliat is correct.
Mr. Morgan. Did you accompany Mr. Tyler to New York City in
the course of this interview ?
Mr. Heald. I did.
Mr. Morgan. You have heard Mr. Tyler's observations concerning
the interview. Do you have anything to modify or correct in any
manner ?
Mr. Heald. I do have a little more recollection of the conversation.
I specifically recall Mr. van Beuren asking us whether he would be
called, and Mr. Tyler again pointed out to him that it was a matter
for the subcommittee; we had no jurisdiction in that matter, and that
the intent of this interview was to report the facts to the subcom-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1211
mitee. I recall Mv. van Beuren stating that the reason he wanted to
know was to determine whether he should make any statements to the
press, and that if he was to be called he thought it would be more
proper not to make an}' statements.
We were unable to give him any further information, and my recol-
lection is that it was my intention to leave him with the impression
that we could not give him any answer as to whether or not he would
be called.
Mv. Morgan. Mr. Heald, you too at one time were associated with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. Heald. I was.
Mr. ^Morgan. During the period of your association with the Bu-
reau, have you at any other time had a suggestion that you have en-
deavored to color testimony in the course of an interview, or to
discredit witnesses or similarly to mishandle an interview?
]Mr. Heald. No ; I have never been charged with any conduct of that
nature.
Mr. Morgan. Do you have any other observations you would care to
make concerning this situation?
Mr. Heald. I would like to point out that at no time w^ere we advised
that Mr. van Beuren had previously been interviewed, and it was our
impression that we were getting the initial information for this