that he did something improper. He is now talking about his conver-
sation with Mr. Larsen in the State Department.
Senator Lodge. I understood you to say, :Mr. Peurifoy, that before
]\rarch 20 you had one conversation with Mr. Larsen on the telephone?
Mr. Peurifoy. In person I have had one conversation Avhen he came
to my office on March 20.
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Peurifoy. And he called on April 4 to inquire as to whether or
not Mr. Peurifoy received the memorandum he left with Mr. Bryan,
the material "To whom it may concern," and I told him over the
teel phone "Yes." , . ,
Then on April 11 Mr. Larsen called, to leave a message for me which
I have a record of, if you are interested in it, although I don'tjhmk it
pertains to this case. However, if anyone wants to see it I have the
memorandum here. â€ž , , â€¢ . a^
Prior to that, Senator Lodge, I do not recollect having met Mr.
Senator Lodge. Before the 20th of March?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right. .
Senator Lodge. You don't recall having any previous conversation
with him? ^, . n ,
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, I do, maybe a year or two ago, this man called
Senator Tydixgs. Who, Larsen?. , , i , .
Ml- Peurifoy. Yes, sir; Mr. Larsen called me and asked me about
his record in the Department, that he was seeking a Government ]ob.
He wanted to know whether he was clear securUy wise, et cetera.
Senator Loix;e. Was that the first conversation you ever had with
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. And it was by telephone?
Mr. Peurifoy. Telephone. ^ , ^ . o
Senator Lodge. And this was approximately what date?
Mr. Peubifoy. It might have been a year and a halt or two years
ago. ' I have no record on it. I just remember. n i ,
Senator Lodge. Did you remember him when he called up.
1232 STATE D'EPARTAIEXT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peurifoy. I did.
Senator Lodge. Did he call before ?
Mr. Peurifoy, A Member of Congress called me and asked me if
I would look into Mr. Larsen's record, that he knew Mr. Larsen and
wanted to know if the Department had anything in its record other
than the plea of nolle contendere in the Amerasia case. I looked into
the Department record and that is all there was on his record.
Senator Lodge. So it was called to your attention by a Member of
Congress a year and a half or two years ago ?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right,
Seantor Lodge, That is the first time you became aware of his ex-
istence, is that right ?
Mr. Peurifoy. As far as I am conscious ; I may have read when they
arrested these people, but it was the first time it came to my attention.
Senator Lodge. So you became aware of this man long after hig
connection with the State Department had been settled, is that correct?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is correct, sir, and I assume as a result of my
conversation with the Congressman subsequently he did call me about
that time and he said he appreciated what I said. I did not say any-
thing that I would not say anywhere else. I told him what the record
indicated which was it showed that Larsen had resigned in late 1945.
There was a notation in the file of course about his connection with
Amerasia. I was not passing on his security. He is not an appli-
cant for a position in the Department; so I was not passing on it
Senator Lodge. You were transmitting information vou had, is
that it? "^ '
Mr. Peurifoy. That is all.
Senator Tydings, Did you commit yourself in any way on the se-
curity matter ? Or did you just read the record ?
Mr Peurifoy. I just called Personnel and got the record and re-
Senator Tydings. You transmitted it?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Did you add or subtract to the record ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Oh, no, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did you make any recommendation or statement
to the Congressman on Mr, Larsen ?
Mr, Peurifoy, No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Was that the sole content of the conversation you
had with the Congressman over the telephone ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Did you say it was the sole content?
Senator Tydings, Was this the substance of it, or was there any-
thing else? *^
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir; the Congressman was open and aboveboard
and so was I.
Mr, Morgan. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record,)
Senator Tydings AH right. Now go on the record again,
Mr Peurifoy. Well, so far as I am concerned that is all I have to
say about this, I play this game as straight as I Imow how. Ire-
sent these charges. I do not know what I can do about it except to
tell you gentlemen under oath there is not one iota of truth in either
ot these charges that I promised Mr. Larsen anythino-.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1233
Senator Tydings. Tlieii your statement is catefj:orically that you
did not make any promise to ^Mr. Larsen indireolly or of any kind or
in any war, sliape or form as an inducement to inlluence Mr. Larsen
in his testnnony in rejj^ard to the Amerasia ease or in regard to any
other matter under inquiry in the State Department?
Mr. Peurifoy. Absohitelv and most emphatically.
Senator Tydings. Neither that nor in any manner ever dealt with
him through any agent or man ?
Mr. PEURiroY. 1 want to say , i. i i
Senator HiCKENLOorER (interposing). For the sake of the i'eÂ«>i-tl-
The Chairman asked the question have you done these things, ihat
is what the Cliairman emphatically asked in that question and there
was no cue on the answer. Without the "No" it would otherwise be
hanging in the air. i x- n
Mv Peuritcy. I repeat absolutely and most emphatically no.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Peurifoy, you are probaably not fa^mihar with
what was stated in our record on the matter and I would like your
observation concerning Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen said :
I went to see Mr. Peurifoy and told him that I could not testify against Mr.
Se rvTce that he was a Communist or pro-Communist but that I. ^^^^j^J^ not hold
bick testimony that I did suspect him of slanting his reports m favor of the
Chinese Communists, who were then our allies.
Do you have any observation or comment to make concerning that
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir ; I told Mr. Larsen :
T rin not know whether you are going to be called before the subcommittee
or not, o? before^ the L^^alty Boai'l.^ I assume you might be caUed before both
but whatever you say, you tell the truth. I don't care who it affects.
Tliat was niv replv to Mr. Larsen on that.
Mr. Morgan. Do you recall his ever having made this statement to
Don't fear that I am going to testify against Service. ^
Mr. Peurifoy. As a matter of fact I do not i;ecall Â«^f I dont
care what he says about Mr. Service I wanted hnn to t^ ^h^ ^^ ^;:
Mr. ^loROAN. Do you now or had you ever ^^ ^^"J ^ "^VaJsen to
knowledge of the pending application on the part ot Mr. Laisen to
secure Government employments n+fom,^tino- to crpt
Mr Peurifoy. He mentioned to me that he was attempting to get
anothef Government job in an agency that I believe he described as
nonessential to the sJate Department, and he was applying and he
wanted to know what the Department would say. .
T told him the normal request would come in my personnel othce ana
umler m To icie , and the complete files of the Department of State
are ava^We to an'y agency in Washington that wants to see them.
Senator Lodqe. And they make up their own mmds i
SeL^o^lS^E. iTi'd you don't make a recommendation one way or
the other ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes.
1234 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Another statement I would like your observation
on, Mr. Peurifoy, is Mr. Larsen's comment when he said:
General Wedemeyer introduced him to General Boiling- of military
intelligence, who said : "I have known Larsen for quite a long time
and I have great faith in him, and I do not have such just superficially.
I have had him iiivestigated, and I have been told by Mr. Peurifoy
that there is no record against him in the State Department."
Do you know a General Boiling of the military intelligence?
Mr. Peueifot. No, sir.
Mr, ]SIoRGAx. Have you ever had any contact with anyone in the
military intelligence relative to Mr. Larsen ?
Mr. Peuritoy. I do not recall any contact at all in the military
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever to anyone observe, "There is no record in
the State Department against Mr, Larsen"" ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Only insofar as what I have indicated earlier. I told
the Congressman that the record indicated he had resigned. Obviously
there was a notation in the files concerning Amerasia. The record
states he resigned voluntarily. He saysâ€” I have a letter on that, I do
]iot know, I haven't seen the language
Mr, Morgan. Have you ever made the statement to anyone, Mr.
Peurifoy, there was no annotation in the State Department files of
disloyalty on the part of Mr. Larsen ?
Mr. PEtJRiFOT. Not insofar as I can recall. On the other hand, I
nnght say now that technically I doubt if there is a notation of dis-
loyalty, because there was no loyalty program at that time. This was
in 1945, when he resigned from the Department.
Senator Tydings, When was the lovalty ])rogram instituted?
Mr, Peurifoy, Li the fall of 194T; wasn"t it. Mr. Boykin?
Mr, BoYKiN. The Executive order was issued March 21, 1947, and
it got m oper;dion in October.
Senator Tydings, That is right. That is just for the record.
Mr. Morgan. Have you any other observation on that?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Mr, Morgan, Now, I think I must refer here to portions of this
address to which you have made reference, Mr, Peurifov, the address
of Senator McCarthy of June 15, 1950, in order to obtain your obser-
vations on it.
Senat^or Tydings, You mean Senator McCarthy's speech.
Mr, Morgan. The statement is made, referring to your contact with
Mr. Larsen : ^ -^
This is a picture of this top security officer consortln- and dealing with a thief
of Government secret documents * * *_
A? ^ ^v/''^T *râ„¢ y"""?" testimony, you have had one contact person-
ally with Mr. Larsen ; is that correct ?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right, I want to make another statement
on that, 1 am a public official, and anvone who wants to see me can
see me. I have always had that policy. I want to point out to you
tl^it a inember of my staff was present when this man came into my
office. 1 will see anyone who wants to see me on public interest. He
did not come to my home; he came to my office, which is public
property and anyone who wants to see me can come and see me
anytime they like, if I have the time to see them physically
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INAESTIGATION 1235
He did not point, however, tliat I saw this man before.
Senator Tydincs. Did lie come voluntarily to the Department?
]Mr. Peukifoy. 1 never saw him alone, Mi'. Chairman, and I don't
ever intend to.
Mr. Morgan. Another statement that I would like io liave your
comment on, Mr. Peurifoy, is this:
Ladies and gentloiuen, heiv/is tlit^ wliolo malodorous stm-y :
* * * Tlio thief of Siato 1 tepaitiiu'iit secTots, in a discussion \vilh tbo Slate
Department's top security officer says. "Don't worry, John. I wau't testify against
my codefendant, John Service, whom yon liave been pnl>licl}' defeudlny."
Mr. Peukifoy. That is not true. Mr. ^loroau, 1 never met the man
before. I don't call ])eople by their first names when they come in.
Senator Ty'dings. He is sayinj; this to you.
Mr. Peurifoy'. He does not call me that.
Senator Tydings. He said, ''Don't worry, John * 'â– ' *".
Mr. Peurifoy'. Yes; I luiderstand.
Mr. jMorgax. There is a further statement here :
Acheson's top security officer then rewards this man convicted in the Anierasia
espionage case by oft'ering liim at taxpayers' expense tlie legal services of the
State Department's chief counsel. In addition, Larsen got full loyalty clearance
for any job in the Government.
Now, in your testimony thus far, have you made all the comments
you care to make concerning this statement ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Well, I have no authority to give anyone security
clearance in this Government. Obviously, I could not have made that
statement. But, speaking for the Department of State alone, where
I do have authority, my answer to you is, I did not say that, or give
him loyalty or security clearance. He was not an applicant for a job,
and I had no occasion to pass on it.
Then, on the question of free legal advice, I think I attemiDted
to cover it in my opening statement by saying when he left my office
I asked him, if he had any further information on the Amerasia case,
I wished he would give it to the legal adviser of the Department. Mr.
Fisher. I was not sending him to Mr. Fislier for legal advice. Tliat
was so we wanted to get all the facts pertaining to Amerasia in our
hands. Th^t was the purpose of that remark. I think it is significant,
as I really did not call Mr. Fisher and ask him to see him. He went
out of my office and told my secretary Mr. Peurifoy wanted him to
see Mr. Fisher, so she sent him down to the office. jSIr. Fisher did
not see him for some time, and subsequently mentioned he had seen
Mr. Morris. "\Aniat was the discussion between Mr. Fisher and Mr.
Larsen about ?
Mr. Peurifoy^ I do not know, sir. I am sorry ; I do not know. I do
not know, Mr. Morris. I assmne it was pertaining to the Anieiasia
case, because that is the only thing I asked him to talk to Mr. Fisher
about, and nothing else was reported back to me.
Mr. ]MoRRis. Just a second, Mr. Peurifoy. I understood you said
you did not tell him to see Mr. Fisher, and then you said you told him
to see him about Amerasia. I just want to get that clear.
Mr. Peurifoy. I said, if he had any further information. He spoke
of a memorandum he wanted to leave, and I said if he had any furtlier
information pertaining to the Amerasia case I suggested that he talk
to Mr. Fisher.
1236 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I X^ESTI CATION
Mr. Morris. I just wanted to get that cleared up.
Mr. Peuritoy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Again referring to the speech, I liave one observation
that I want your comment on :
Peurifoy is not to go unrewarded. When his job in "Operation Whitewash" i&
completed, he is to be appointed ambassador to some lucky country.
Senator Tydtngs. Off the record.
(Discussion otf the record.)
Mr. Morgan. Do you have any comment to make oi^ that Mr.
Senator Hickenlooper. I might suggest. Mr. Chairman, for the
moment Mr. Peurifoy might be the wrong felloAv to comment on the
possibility of his appointment in the Department. I might be em-
barrassing for him to comment on it at this time. I would not hesi-
tate, if I though he had something on this matter, but I can conceive-
that it might be embarrassing for Mr. Peurifoy to comment at this
time on what his future might be.
Senator Ttdings. I think that is a sensible suggestion, and, without
objection on the part of the committee, I don't think Mr. Peurifoy
needs to comment on it if he does not desire to do so.
Senator Hickenlooper. I may say that it is possible that it might
subsequently be pertinent to ask him about it. I don't want to close^
the door on it.
Mr. Morgan. Senator, my purpose in asking tliis was as a result
of the fact that Mr. Peurifoy is appearing before the committee today
at his own request to answer some of these charges.
Mr. Hickenlooper. I am not objecting, INIr. Morgan. If you feel
that the answer to the question is something that you want, I will
witlidraw my objection. I merely call attention to the fact that in
that particular field at this moment I personalh^ would not ask that
question about his future, unless tliere is some specific reason. If you
want to go ahead and ask the question, I will not criticize it.
Mr. Morgan. I have no desire to pursue the question further. If Mr.
Peurifoy wislies to comment on it, it is all right ; and, if he does not,
it is quite all right, as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Peurifoy. Mv. Morgan, they have taken no action on my future^
and I don't think that I, perhaps, should really comment on any
Senator McMaiion. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydings. On the record.
Inasmuch as you raised the question a moment ago. I can say that
1 consider here that it might be entirely desirable for Mr. Peurifoy
to re])ly to the allegation that he may or may not have been promised
a reward for some particular action or course of conduct in connection
with the Amerasia case. We only raised the question as to any specific
job, any connnitment he might be inquiring about. The subject matter^
I think, is rather broad.
Mr. Pkirifoy. I appreciate the opportunity to reply to the accusa-
tion, and I will say, under oath, I have been^ promised nothing as a
result of my actions in the Amerasia case or any of the loyalty
or security cases in the Depa rtment .
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not waut to attempt to shorten up your
examiiiat ion on any particular job.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 1237
]Mr. MoROAx. I think the answer as given, Senator, is ample.
Senator Hickexlooper. He should be jxiven an o])i)ortunity to can-
vass that alleji'ation Avithout at thisnioniont decidiiiir the case.
Mr. MoncAX. ]\lr. Chairman, 1 woukl like to ask some (juestions of
Mr. Peurifo}' in connection with onr over-all invest ijiat ion, but ^lerhaps
other members of the subcommittee woidd care to pursue this line of
interroii-ation somewhat before I ask those questions.
Senator Tydinc;s. Does any member of the connnittee wish to ask
any questions pertaininjij to the things Avhich are now before us?
Mr. INforiian has asked questions on it. Do you prefer to ask now or
wait until he finishes?
Senator Hickexlooper. ^Ir. Chairman, I have a few questions.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead. I see.
Do you have any questions, Senator Green ?
Senator (treex. I have no questions.
Senator T'iT)ixGS. Do you have any questions, Senator McMahon?
Senator Mc^NIahox. I have no questions.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Lodge, do you want to ask any ques-
Senator Lodge. I have no questions at this time.
Senator Tydixgs. You may proceed, Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickexlooper. In your talks with Mr. Larsen. either on the
telephone or personally, did you and Mr. Larsen discuss the article
he wrote, carried under his name, in Plain Talk magazine ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, Senator Hickenlooper. Xot on the telephone.
Senator Hickexlooper. "Will you give us the conversation in regard
to that article?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir; this was in the conversation on March 20
in my office. He hold me that he had written an article for Plain
Talk. He told me that ^Ir. Levine and ^fr. Cobert. or a name some-
thing like that, got him in Florida and took him to a hotel in Xew
York and paid his expenses, and he spent several days in this hotel
room writing this article. He said they came in and objected to the
article â€” that it was not strong enough â€” and he then told me that
rliey changed his article; and, as it appears, it was not the article that
he had written.
That was the sum and substance of it.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did he tell you in wliat particulars or with
respect to what particulars they changed the article?
Mr. Peurifoy. I don't recall that he did, Senator; he may have.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did he say anything to you about being
motivated by personal reasons or a grudge or anger in writing the
Mr. Peurifoy. I believe he said a grudge against Service; that he
felt Service ''put the finger on him before tlie grand jury," as I recall
it. That was the only case of grudge or ar.ger.
He did mention, in regard to this article, in a luncheon that he had
with some other people, that he had been in the Far Eastern Office, on
Senator Hickenlooper. Did he say anything to you, or infer in tlie
conversation, as far as any understanding you had. that he had either
changed his mind, that he was not of the same opinion, or the article
he had wi-itten was completely wrong, or anything of tliat kind.
1238 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peukifoy. He did indicate that the article did not conform
to liis original manuscript, and, therefore, he thought they put more
emphasis on certain individuals than he had put in his original
Senator IIickenlooper. Did he tell you that he had never been
critical of General AVedemeyer or had never been critical of General
Marshall or had never been critical of Dean Acheson ?
Mr. Peukifoy. I don't recall that he made that statement to me, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Peurifoy, have you seen a cojDy of the
testimony of Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Peukifoy. No, sir; I have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you seen any notes or resume?
Mr. Peukifoy. No, sir; I have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Except in the papers?
Mr. Peukifoy. That is all.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did Mr. Larsen say anything to you about
whether or not the statute of limitations had expired, or did he inquire
into the phase of the situation?
Mr. Peurifoy, No ; I don't believe so.
Senator Hickenlooper. Or in any statement had had made there-
Mr. Peukifoy. No, sir. I am not a lawyer. Maybe he knew that.
He did not raise it with me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did he say anything to you that led you
to believe in any way that he was seeking or desirous of obtaining
legal advice on the situation?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, I take it that the only reason why,
so far as he desired to see Mr. Fisher, or that you desired that he see
Mr. Fisher, was that he furnish such information as he might have on
the Amerasia case that you did not already have.
Mr. Peurifoy. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. And he did not discuss the legal situation
with you at all ?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did he discussâ€” and this may have been
fully covered earlierâ€” did he discuss what the attitude of the Depart-
ment would be upon his application for a position with some other
Government department ?
Mr. Peukifoy. Yes ; he did, insofar as he wanted to know what the
records of the Department indicated ; and I told him that the records
indicated that he had resigned and obviously there would be reference
in the files to his part in Amerasia.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are aware, then, and the Department
was aware, that the plea of nolo contendere involved the allegation
of his participation in the clearing house of taking out of documents
from State Department files ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir; I knew it.
Senator Hickenlooper. You and the Department were aware that
was a complete breach of trust and faith in a very sensitive part of
our Government; were you not?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. He had resigned Â«
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, in 1945, in the fall.
8TATE DEPARTMK.XT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1239
Senator Hickenloopek. Do you have any reason, or do you have any
opinion, based upon conversations with otliers in the Department, or
acquired in any way. as to why this man who stood in court and â€”
while lie did not actually plead guilty, it was tantamount to a plea
of guilty, and he accepted a sentence for taking out these documents â€”
was permitted to resign and was not discharged as a disloyal in-
]Mr. Peurifoy. I am sorry ; I do not know that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is it the policy of the State Department in
cass of this kind to give these people an easy way out, rather than to
bring connnensurate punishment on them for their breach of trust?
' Mr. Peiiufoy. Well, sir, I think I have proven that I have the desire
anci the will to do whatever justice calls for. If it calls for firing, I
have no compunction in firing these people. I have done it and I
will do it again, sir, if the occasion arises.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, the basis of my question is that in
a number of the Government departments they have permitted a per-
son to resign in the face of proven and established nnfaithfnl acts,
whether you call it disloyalty or whatever you call it. They are acts
of unfaithfulness to their trust which have been proven. That has
taken place in Government departments, to my personal knowledge,
and I happen to be violently opposed to it. I think if there is no proof
or if there is a suspicion or a matter of judgment that someone is not
desirable, perhaps a resignation is in order ; but where there is proof
of that fact, where it has been established, then I definitely oppose the
device of permitting any culprit to resign, because I am very much
of the opinion that they have gone to other departments in the Gov-