Mr. Peurifoy. INfay I say a few words?
Senator Tydixgs. Is this on the record?
Mr. Peurifoy'. Yes, sir. I tliink yon probably know where I come
from and my backgronnd. M}- people came to this conntry in 1619
on the Maylfoirer.
I don't think that makes a person any more loyal than someone
else who may have jnst became a citizen, bnt I jnst want to also say
I went to the Unitect States Militar}^ Academy, where I do not believe
thej' teach Comnnniist beliefs; and my whole background is against
this i)hilosophy.
1 myself believe anyone who believes in communism does not believe
in God. I ma}' go further than some people, but that happens to be
my own personal belief.
I started in the State Department as a clerk. I believe and I think
it is a privilege to work for this Government. I don't think it is a
right to work for this Government. I believe I am a servant of the
people. I try to regard it that waj^ so that I regard the Appropria-
tions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee as my board of
directors and I am the general manager, and when they call me up
before them I am in that capacity. So, I only want to say that my
whole feeling, my whole instinct, is opposed to anyone who is sabo-
taging this country or the Department or its institutions. Off the
record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator PIickenlooper. Mr. Peurifo}', anybody who knows any-
thing about 3^our background knows there is no question but you are
very vigorous and fundamental in your attitude toward it. There is
no criticism of your personal attitude in this matter.
]Mr. Peurifoy. I understand it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I understand you cannot take every loyalty
case and go through it personally and make a report. No one in-
dividual can. My observations were directed to the philosophy that
seems to manifest itself on the attitude toward Government employees,
and I would like to make it clear it is not alone in the State Department
but in all departments of the Government. It is a philosophy that
the Government owes somebody a job, and you have got to prove them
guilty of a heinous crime in order to get him out.
Senator Lodge. I understand that in the FBI, if there is the slight-
est question or suspicion of any kind, that the party can be transferred
from the job that he is going ahead with to another job, or he can be
dismissed.
Senator Ttdixgs. "For the good of the service."
Senator Lodge. Have you ever done that ?
Mr. Pei^rifot. He is talking about in the FBI.
Senator Lodge. I will ask IVIr. Morgan. He has been in the FBI.
Mr. iVIoRGAX. Yes. My o[)inion for Avliat it is worth is that the
Bureau has taken very summary action in any cause where there
was any question concerning an employee.
Senator Lodge. Any question of any kind?
Mr. ]\IoRGAx. That is right.
Senator Lodge. My question then is why should not the same pol-
icy be followed right along in the State Department?
68970 — 50— pt. 1 80
1256 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peurifoy. I tliink, if there is was any reason to doubt someone,
we should take steps to get rid of them,
I, myself, Senator Lodge, do not subscribe — my people disagree
with me — I do not subscribe to the theory if you have something
against someone that you transfer them to some other job. If that
pei^on is not qualified to do a job by reason of the question of his loy-
alty or security, I really don't think they should be in the Department.
Senator Lodge. Then you agiee that the FBI method would be a
good one?
Mr. Peurifoy. I do think it is a good one.
Senator Tydings. All right, we will take a recess until 10 : 30 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
(Thereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed to meet on Thurs-
day, June 22, 1950, at 10 : 30 a. m.)
STATE DEPARTMENT LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1950
United States Senate,
CoM:\iii"rEE ON Foreign Relations,
Sui5C()Mmitiee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C.
The subconiniittee met at 10:30 a. m., in the Senate caucus room,
room 318, Senate Office Building, pursuant to adjournment on Wednes-
day June 21, 1950, Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the
subconnnittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Tydings, (chairman of the subcommittee, (Green,
Hickenlooper, and Lodge, and Chairman Connally of the full com-
mittee.
Also present : Mr, Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
connnittee; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommit-
tee; Mr. John S. Service, Foreign Service officer of the United States,
Department of State, and counsel : Gerard D. Reilly, Esq., and Charles
Edward Rhetts, Esq., of the firm of Reilly, Rhetts & Ruckelhaus.
Senator Tydin uS. The conmiittee will come to order.
The chairman desires to make a brief statement.
It was intended yesterday that we would proceed today in execu-
tive session. Late last night I understand Mr. Service and his attor-
neys requested that he be heard in open session.
I did not know that until I arrived at the Captiol this morning, as I
was up the country last night and only learned of it this morning.
It has been the announced policy of the committee that those who
are charged in the open shall have the right to reply in the open if
they request it.
We further believe it is good American policy to give a man a chance
to answer in the open any charges made against him in the open.
Anything else would violate the spirit of our whole constitutional
form of government.
This is not a criminal trial but it has overtones here where a man's
reputation and living are at stake to a large extent.
Therefore, when I heard this morning through our attorney that
Mr. Service had requested that he be heard in open session the Chair
felt he had no oj)tion except to grant the request in the American tra-
dition and in line with the proceedings heretofore adopted in this
connnittee.
I regret that I had to take precipitate action but as the hour of 10 : 30
Avas drawing near and I oidy heard it a quarter after 10, 1 hope I have
not done anything wrong. I have done it in haste as the circum-
stances permitted me.
1257
1258 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN"VEST'IGATION
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, I think it is regrettable that deci-
sions are made as to holding public hearings without the consent of
the committee.
There is not much point being on these committees if you are not
going to have a chance in taking part in making these decisions.
I don't feel this particular matter before us, the sole question is
the question of just one individual. I think there are a number of
other factors involved.
It was decided to pursue this Amerasia investigation in private, for
reasons which seemed to me excellent. I do not know how I would have
thought of it if I had been given an opportunity, but I think it is a
poor procedure to make decisions on these matters as important as
this without consulting other members of the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. I think that is a fair observation except I don't
think the committee has any option but to grant an open hearing where
an American citizen is under attack. It is not solely the Amerasia case
but I understand 'the purview of the charges against him extend beyond
that. Therefore I think the Chair could do nothing else but accede to
his request as he is the man who has moi-e to get and lose by it.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people have
quite a bit at stake.
Senator Tydings. That is right.
Senator Lodge. And I am for doing justice to all people including
Mr. Service, but that is not the situation here. This is the Amerasia
case. On that the proper method to follow would be decisions by our
committee. I do not see why we should be called upon to make these
hasty decisions. I do not think it is the proper way to conduct these
proceedings.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Service, do you solemnly proclaim and swear
that the evidence you give now before this committee shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Service. I do.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. SERVICE, EOEEIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF
THE UNITED STATES
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, sir.
Give us your full name.
Mr. Service. John Steward Service.
Senator Tydings. And your present occupation ?
Mr. Service. I am a Foreign Service officer of the United States.
Senator Tydings. And your present address ?
Mr. SER\^CE. National Hotel, I Street, Washington.
Senator Tydings. And how long have you been in the service of the
State Department ?
Mr. SER^^CE. Since June 1943 — excuse me, 1933.
Senator Tydings. Now, just for the purpose of identification, you are
here with counsel.
Mr. Service. I am.
Senator Tydings. I am going to ask your counsel if he will not iden-
tify himself for the purposes of the record?
Mr. Reilly. My name is Gerard D. Reilly. I have an office in the
Tower Building. I have my assistant with me.
Mr. Rhetts. My name is C. E. Rhetts.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 1259
Senator Tyhings. You are partners?
Mr. RiiETTS. "We are partiiors in tlie firm of Reilly, Rhetts &
Ruekelsliaus in tlie Tower Buildinii^,
Senator Tydings. Now, ]\Ir. Service, I have before me w^liat I pre-
sume is a formal prepared statement which I imagine you want to read.
Ts that correct?
Mr. Service. If I may.
Senator Tydixgs. If you read it we will try not to interrupt you for
any extensive interrogation except for a date or something- of that
sort, so if 3'ou proceed to read your statement we will reserve interro-
gation until you have completed your statement. You may proceed.
Mr. Service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I start may I say it has been my intention all along to coop-
erate to the greatest extent with this committee and to accede to your
wishes in regard to the manner in which this investigation would be
conducted.
When we learned yesterday that there were some requests, some
feeling that these hearings be public, we were glad to request and so
I made the suggestion. I understood from the press that none of
the hearings were public and for my part we were glad to find the
request that they be open.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter to the chair-
man of the subcommittee a couple of days ago suggesting inasmuch
as this matter has been given great publicity and ballyhooed around
I thought there were no reasons why since the matter was of such
interest that it might be well to have Mr. Service appear in open
hearing. So I am the member of the committee who made that
suggestion to the chairman. I did not make it to Mr. Service but I
made it to the chairman.
I have no objection to the letter going in the record if the chairman
wants to insert it. I did make the suggestion and request.
Senator Lodge. But certainly I was somewhat amazed that the
witness should know more about what was going on in the committee
than a member of the committee.
Mr. Service. I read it in the press.
Senator Tydings. He said he read it in the press.
I do not think the witness knows what is going on in the committee.
There is no evidence that he does. That is a pure assumption, Mr.
Lodge.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think yesterday morning or perhaps in
the afternoon in response to the request I said, "Yes, I have no objec-
tion to Mr. Service appearing before the committee in a public hear-
ing," and I wrote to the chairman to that effect.
Senator Tydings. Let us get on with the testimony.
Senator Green. As I understood it after long deliberation the com-
mittee voted unanimously that there should be no further public hear-
ings unless in case of an exception of anyone who had been accused
publicly.
Senator Tydixgs. Yes, and that is the case here. Mr. Service served
notice he wanted to be heard publicly.
Senator HiCKENLoopER. Very well.
Senator Ty'dings. Go ahead, Mr. Service.
1260 STATE DEPARTMENT EOVIPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTV^ESTIGATION
Mr. Service. First, I wish to thank this subcommittee for this
opportunity of appearing before you. As an American citizen, there
is nothino- more important to me than my good name and reputation
for loyalty. As a servant of the American Government, I am also
naturally anxious to assist, so far as I have relevant knowledge, in
clarifying matters whicli are under investigation by your committee
and in answering the various charges which, if true, would cast grave
doubt on my suitability for office and reflect on the integi'ity of our
Government.
The various charges against me relate to two periods : first, my duty
from 104:0 to April 1945, as a Foreign Service officer attached to the
staff of the commanding general of the United States forces in China ;,
and second, the ])eriod"from April to June 1945, during which I met
Philip Jaffe and Alark Gayn for the first time and tlius, unliappily^
became innoceutly involved in the so-called Amerasia case.
I should like to describe for this committee something of what I
was doing during these periods — why I was doing it aud under what
circumstances.
I joined the P'oreign Service in 19?>3 and after preliminary studies
as a language officer in Peiping from 19:^5 to 1937, and an intensive
period of combined study and practical service in the American con-
sulate general in Shanghai under the then consul general, Clarence E.
Gauss, I volunteered early in 1941 for assignment to the American
Embassy at Chmigking, of which Ambassador Nelson T. Johnson
was then Chief. AVithin a short time Ambassador Johnson was suc-
ceeded by my former chief, Mr. Gauss, as Ambassador. I served
under him for a period of approximately a year and a half as third
secretary of the Embassy. During this period it was my good fortune
to serve in a direct association with Ambassador Gauss as a general
intelligence officer engaged in gathering political information from
every available source in a highly complex political community. By
this I mean that my "beat" included every shade of political opinion
and person — ranging from the P'oreign Office of the Chinese Govern-
ment through the Chinese press to the representatives, officially recog-
nized by the Chinese Government, of the Chinese Communist Party..
Considering the circumstances of my presence before this com-
mittee, I will perhaps be forgiven if I quote directly from former
Ambassador Gauss as to the nature and quality of my performance as
a servant of my Government at this time. I quote his testimony dur-
ing the course of my hearing before the State Department loyalty
security board.
This is Mr. Gauss answering
Senator Hickexlooper. At this point, ^Vlr. Cliairman, I suggest
as orderly procedure if the witness cares to bi-in<r in part of the testi-
mony before the State Department loyalty security board that I
reserve the right to raise the cpiestion as to whether or not the entire
testimony before the loyalty board shall be bi-ought in. It is entirely
up to the witness. 1 don't waive my right at this moment. •
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Service. It is my hope to be able to introduce the entire trans-
cript of my hearing before the State Department lovalty board.
Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead.
Senator Hickenlooper's position will be noted in the record.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATrON 1261
Mr. Service. This is what Ambassador Gauss said, answering:
Answer. Now, I would like to go very positively into that particular question
because the only thiiiu: that I know about of Mr. Service — of complaint against
him — is the iMcCarthy statement that he associated with Comnnuiists. In
Chunskins Mr. Service was a political officer of the Embassy. His job was to
cover the water front. His job was to get every bit of information that he
possibly could, and he went over to the Chuniiking side of the river every day
and he saw everybody that he could. Now it was diflicult to get information
in those days. We had a censorship. They had all these wonderful stories
about Chinese victories which never proved to be true. (They) used to give
out this information to the press and your Chinese press was censored, you
couldn't get information, you had to go out and get it yourself. .Jack Service's
job was to go over to the other side of the river and to see everybody that he
could. He would see the foreign press people. He saw the Chinese press people.
He saw anybody in any of the embassies or legations that were over there that
were supposed to know anything. He saw any people in the Foreign CfRce or
any of the other ministeries. He went to the Kuomintang headquarters and
talked with whoever he could see there. He went to the Ta Kung Pao, which
was the independent newspaper. He went to this independent newspaper, he was
in touch with those people. He went to the Communist newspaper. He went
to Communist headquarters. He associated with everybody and anybody in
Chungking that could give him information, and he pieced together this puzzle
that we had constantly before us as to what was going on in China, and he did
a magnificent job at it.
Question. His contact with the Communists at that point was strictly in
accordance with his official duties?
Answer. Strictly in accordance with his official duties. I didn't tell him to
go there, but I expected him to go there, that was his job, and you didn't have
to tell .Jack Service what his job was, or how to do it. He did it. I would like
to make that very plain (transcript of proceedings. Loyalty Security Board.
in the case of John S. Service, Saturday, May 27, 1950, 2-5: .30 p. m., pp. 9-11).
In the summer of 1943, at the request of Gen. Joseph Stihvell, Sec-
retary of War Stimson arranged wnth the State Department for me
to be detached from the Embassy at Chungking and to be attached to
General Stilwell's staff. I continued to serve on the staff of the Com-
manding General of the China-Burma-India theater from August
194?> until my eventual recall from China in April 194.5, at the
insistence, I am told, of the then Ambassador, Patrick J. Hurley. It
is of considerable importance in connection with my presence here
today to emphasize that throughout this period I was responsible not
to the American Ambassador but to the commanding general — first,
to General Stilwell and, after October 1944. to General Wedemyer, and
that I never received any indication or intimation from either of them
that my services or my political reports were anything but satisfactory.
In fact I was connnended by both of them for my work.
My duties and activities during this period can be appraised only
against the background of that time and of the military and political
situation then existing in China. It has been said with much justifica-
tion that the China-Burma-Indian theater was a relatively minor mili-
tary theater of operations dnring the war but that it was most complex
military political theater of any involved in the war. China was a
theater of vest military i^otential in the war against Japan but at
every point the realization of that potential was conditioned by and
dependent upon the political factors. I cannot, within the permissible
bounds of this testimony, attempt to describe all of these political
aspects of the Chinese situation in relation to the war against Japan.
My own part in the American organization in China was by no
means important. General Stilwell had an extensive knowledge of
1262 STATE DEiPARTMElSiT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
China based on roughly 20 years of service in that country. Although
I was privileged to count General Stilwell as a friend, neither I nor
anyone familiar with the situation regarded myself as an intimate
of the General's or as an important or significant influence on his
thinking. As a matter of fact, on the largest political issues of the
time, I shared and, as a very junior member of his staff, sought to
implement his views as to the best means of winning of the war and
serving American interests in China. I could not be so arrogant as
to suppose that I was the originator of those views, or so foolish as
to have attempted to impose them on the General.
My actual duties were various. I was never fully integrated into
the military staff and, in the rather informal way characteristic of
the theater, performed differing functions from time to time wher-
ever my services could be most useful. Primarily, I acted as a polit-
ical intelligence officer in connection watli certain assigned subjects of
direct concern to the prosecution of the war. One of these fields
which I was under specific instructions to cover, from the very begin-
ning of my assignment, was intelligence concerning the Chinese
Communists.
I served as consultant to headquarters staff sections requiring back-
ground information relative to the highly complex Chinese political
scene in which we had to operate. I assisted in liaison with the
Embassy, with other American agencies, and with Chinese individuals
and organizations.
In accordance with General Stilwell's wishes, I maintained close
relations with the rej^resentatives in China of the American press
to the end that the public interest would be served by intelligent
understanding of the situation as it affected and influenced the war
effort in China.
As the war progressed into 1944, several developments in China
reached a point which could not but cause concern to the American
commander and the American Government. Without minimizing the
7 years of war, hardship, and isolation which China had undergone,
the situation in that part of the country controlled by the Central
Government showed signs of such deterioration — caused in consider-
able part by misgovernment — that its continued ability effectively to
oppose the Japanese was clearly in doubt. This was a matter of im-
mediate concern because of the series of determined Japanese cam-
paigns commencing in April 1944 to seal off eastern China and seize
our advanced air bases.
At the same time, the Chinese Communists, by astute use of united-
front tactics and by mastery of guerrilla w^arfare suited to Chinese
rural conditions and their own limited resources, were rapidly ex-
panding their areas of control behind the Japanese lines. Their suc-
cess in this difficult type of warfare and their ability to outcompete
and exclude the Central Government from any important power in
these areas was a clear indication that they were becoming the more
dynamic force in China.
Unfortunately for the war, tension between the two parties mounted
as the Central Government became more concerned over the growing
streng-th of the Communists. A considerable part of its best forces
were diverted to maintaining a rigid blockade of the Communist
areas. The threat of these forces impelled a lialancing innnobilization
of Communist forces. Far from there being cooperation, neither
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATrOX 1263
Cliinese army was willing to exert its maximum effort against the
Japanese.
The areas of Connnunist control were becoming increasingly im-
]>ortant to American military oi)erations. They adjoined the principal
Japanese continental base of Manchuria, lay along much of the China
seacoast, straddled the Japanese land connnunication lines (now vital
to the Japanese because of the success of our attacks on their shipping) ,
and were close to the })rincipal Japanese concentrations in China.
Furthermore, the expansion of our air operations and the use of bases
in v.-est China for the initial B-29 strikes at Japan and JManchnriu
meant that we would be operating over hundreds of miles of Commu-
nist-controlled territory. In addition to order-of-battle and other
intelligence regarding Japanese dispositions and defenses in north
China, it also became vital therefore to set up facilities such as weather
reporting and rescue of ground crews. Exj)erience had demonstrated
the inability of the Central Government adequately to provide these
services where the Communist areas w^ere concerned. American mili-
tar}'^ requirements dictated the need for direct American access to
the Comnnuiist areas.
Under Army instructions I assisted in the negotiations which were
finally successful in June 1944, in obtaining Central Government per-
mission for United States Army intelligence teams to enter the Com-
munist area. And after consultation with and approval of the Em-
bassy and the Department of State, I was ordered by the Army to
proceed with the first group to the Communist base at Yenan for the
purpose of collecting political intelligence regarding the Chinese