China, occurred in October of 1938 when I was in the United States
for a little over 2 months. With the exception of about 2 weeks during
â– which I was on considtation in the Department of State here in Wash-
ington, I spent this leave with my family and relatives in California.
Again in December 1942, after approximately 3 years of further
duty in China, I returned to the United States for a period of ap-
proximately 3 months, of which 1 month was spent in consultation in
the Department of State in Washington and the remainder was spent
with my family in California. I returned to Chungking in x\pril of
1943, and did not return to the United States again until the end of
October 194-1. At this time I remained in Washington for approxi-
mately 3 weeks, then visited my family in California for about 6
weeks, and returned to Chungking on detail to General Wedemeyer's
staff, leaving W^ashington about January 7, 1945.
According to the recently released testimony of Mr. Frank Bielaski
before the Hobbs committee on May 10, 1946, Mv. Bielaski conducted
a raid on the offices of Amerasia on the niglit of March 10, or the early
morning of March 11, 1945. Mr. Bielaski was then employed in the
Office of Strategic Services and it appears that a larger quantity of
classified Government documents and copies was found in the offices
of Amerasia at that time. Th.en, and for many months prior there-
to, with the exception of the short period of leave which I have just
referred to, I had Ijeen stationed in China. Fr >^ ^March 9 to April
4, 1945, I was at Yenan under Army orders f' purpose of col-
lecting political intelligence. On this latter ch received instruc-
tions to return to Washington, which I did, rej -ning Washington on
April 12, 1945. I call attention of this sequence of dates because it
seems obvious that the raid by the offices of Strategic Services on
the premises of America on ]March 11, 1945, demonstrated that what-
ever channels Mr. Jaffe had for obtaining official documents were al-
ready in existence and functioning very well indeed. At that time I
was almost as far from Washington or New York at it is possible to
beâ€” in Yenan, which is in the northwest part of China. At that time
I also had never met Mr. Jaffe or Mr. Gayn or Mv. Larsen or Miss
Mitchell, and I had had only a casual introduction to Lieutenant Roth.
According to a news story appearino- on page 1 of the New York
Times for June 17, 1950, Mr. D. M. Ladd, Assistant Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigaticm, has testified before vour committee
(liat on April 18, 1945, 6 days after my return to this countrv, the
FBI had notified the Department of State and the Naw Depart-
ment that it was prepared to submit the Amerasia case to the Depart-
inent of Justice for its approval of the arrest of the suspects who had
been under surveillance. Such action by the FBI indicates that by
that date, having commenced its investigation a little more than a
month earlierâ€” on March 14, 1945â€” the FBI was satisfied that it
had solved the case and had ascertained the channels by which docu-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1271
inents were apparently flowing- into Jall'e's possession. I could not
possibly have been one of those suspected at that time.
On that (late, I had never met Jatl'e and it was only on tliat date,
coincidentally, that I met Mark Gayn for the first time in my life.
AVhen I did meet Jatfe on the next day, April 19, 1945, 1 did so under
the impression that I was meeting a journalist, whose name was known
to me, in the same manner as I had occasion to meet and talk to many
journalists and representatives of the press. I had no notion or reason
to believe that I was meeting a man who was then under constant
surveillance on suspicion of espionage. My association wdth him
thereafter naturally made me an object of suspicion and ultimately
led to my arrest on June 6, 1945. I should like, therefore, to describe
in some detail to the committee the nature of my association with Mr.
Jaffe and the other persons who were concerned.
There was nothing exceptional about my meeting and becoming-
acquainted with Jatfe, Gayn, and the other i)ersons involved in the
Amerasia case. They were all specialists in the Far East, either as
magazine writers or as Government emploj^ees. I w^as a Foreign
Service officer recently returned from China where I had had prob-
ably more opportunity than any other American to observe the Chinese
Communists, then very much in the news because of the deteriorating
situation in China and the American efforts to promote military and
political unification there.
After my return to Washington, I had been placed temporarily on
consultation, as was customary with officers coming from active field
posts. The purpose of this was to make my fresh knowledge quickly
available to officers of ihe Department of State and the numerous other
Government agencies concerned with China.
It was also, and sti'Vis, the policy of the Department of State that
reputable represe yes of the press are to be supplied with suffi-
cient background n^ 'rnation about events abroad so that the Amer-
ican public may be inve iigently informed. During this i:)eriod, there-
fore, I discussed backgTOund information concerning China with a
considerable number of writers and journalists. Some of these, not
knowing me personally, were sent to me through the Department's
j)ress-relations office. Others knowing me personally or having mu-
tual friends â€” the number of writers specializing in the Far East is
not large â€” got in touch with me more directly. This also is cus-
tomary and not in contravention of regidations.
On April 18 I received a telephone call from Mark Gayn. I had
never joreviously met him but had known a good deal of him as we
shared a China background. I had read at least one of his books and
seen articles fm the Far East Avhich he had written for Collier's. On
this occasion, he told me that he was |)]aiining a series of articles for
the Saturday Evening Post. During a lunch together, he said that he
had an extra bed in his apartment in New York City which he would
be glad to have me use if I ever visited that city.
About this time, I had received an invitation from Lt. Andrew
Roth, whom I had met the previous November on an occasion when,
at the request of my supej-ioi's in the State De]iartment, I had given a
talk on Chinese affairs at the Institute of Pacific Relations in Wash-
ington. Roth invited me for supper at his houie on the evening of
April 19. Roth was a naval officer and I knew him to be assigned to
68970â€” 50â€” i>t. 1 81
1272 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX\"ESTIGATIOX
the Office of Naval Intelligence where he was engaged in intelligence
work relating to the Far East. I had no reason to believe I shonld be
suspicious of Lieutenant Roth or of any journalist to whom he might
seek to introduce me.
During that day of April 19 he telephoned me, saying that Philip
Jaffe was also going to be at his home that evening but was anxious
to meet me before then, since there would be a number of people at
the party and probably little opportunity to talk. Roth asked that I
telephone Jaffe at his hotel and I did so. I knew of Jaffe as the editor
of Amerasia but I had never previously met him nor had any contact
by correspondence or otherwise with him. However, as he was the
editor of a well-known specialist magazine on the Far East, I saw no
reason why I should not meet and talk to him on a background basis
as with any other reputable newspaperman or writer. The only time
that we found convenient was for me to stop at his hotel in tUe late
afternoon and go together to Roth's dinner.
In. view of the later unhapp}^ consequences of my meeting with Mr.
Jaffe, I think I should emphasize at this point that my meeting with
him was in no sense abnormal, since it was entireh' conformable to
the policy concerning relations with the press which I had pursued
under instructions in the field attached to General Stilwell's head-
quarters and also the policy of the Department permitting Foreign
Service officers to provide background information to members of the
When I prepared to leave the office before going over to Jaffe's
hotel, I had on my desk a munber of my personal copies of memoranda
written during my last visit at Yenan. Among these was a report of
an interview with Mao Tse-tung about the end of March, in which
Mao had given details of the current Communist position and the
probable line to be taken at the forthcoming Communist Party
Senator Tydings. When you say, "Commmiist position,-' do 3'ou
mean political or military ?
Mr. Service. I mean the Chinese Communist political position.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Service. It occurred to me that Jaffe would probably be espe-
cially interested in recent news from Yenan and particularly in recent
statements of the Communist position in the controversy going on in
China. I, therefore, took with me my personal copy of this memo-
randum which contained nothing except the Connnunists' own presen-
tation of their position. During the conversation, Mr. Jaffe, as I
expected, asked concerning the present Connnunist attitude and in-
stead of trying to remember in detail. I let him read the memorandum
which I had brought with me. Jaff'e was extremely interested and
asked at once if I did not have other similar reports about Yenan
which it would be possible to show him. Since many of these memos
were jxirely reportorial, containing only statements or observations
available to and continually being obtained by newspapermen on the
spot, I agreed to let Mr. Jaffe se'e some of this type of material. It
was agreed that I would bring some of tliese with me the next day
and that I would lunch with him at his hotel.
Tlie following day I went through my personal copies of my
Yenan memoranda and selected severalâ€” I think about 8 or 10â€” which
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESPVESTIGATION 1273
Avere jHirely descriptive and did not contain discussion of American
military or political policy. These I considered it would be ap-
propriate to allow Jaffe, as a writer on China, to see. I probably
took these to the hotel in the early forenoon, expecting to pick them
up at lunch. At lunch, Jaffe surprised me by saying that he had
not had time to read the memoranda, that he was leaving Washing-
ton that afternoon and wished to take them with him for several days.
After considerable discussion and in view of the nonpolicy and
jnirel}' factual nature of the papers, I allowed Jaffe to retain them.
It was arranged that I would pick them up when I expected to
visit New York a few da3's later for another meeting with the
Institute of Pacific Relations research staff there. I may add that
this meeting was also authorized by my superiors in the Dej)artment
of State and was one at which I discussed off the record the political
background of affairs then prevailing in China.
These personal copies I refer to, and from among which I allowed
Jaffe to see selected ones of a descriptive nonpolicy nature, were some
of my file copies of memoranda which I had written in China over
my own signature, recording my own observations and conversa-
tions as a reporter. They did not represent, nor purport to represent
the views of the Embassy, the Army, or the Department of State.
They bore only the unofficial classification which I placed on them
when I wrote them, a classification which by this time was of no
significance since the information contained in them had been ex-
tensively reported by American newspaper correspondents who had
visited the Communist areas. They were not removed from any
official files ; the}' had never been in official files.
It was not unusual to allow writers to have access to this type of
factual material for background purposes, since reading the ma-
terial or taking notes on it was always more satisfactory from the
viewpoint of accuracy than merely relying on one's memory and
Gayn learned that I was coming to New York for the meeting with
the IPR and telephoned me that he was planning a small party
and wished me to spend the night and to arrive early enough for
supper. I agreed to do this and found at his home on the evening
of April 24 about 10 to 12 people, including Mr. and Mrs. Jaffe, Miss
Kate Mitchell, a publisher and a newspaper correspondent whom I
had known in China, and several other persons, all writers or their
The next day I saw various friends in New York, had my meet-
ing with the research staff of the IPR, and stopped in at Mr. Jaffe's
office to pick up my memoranda.
Early in May, Jaffe again visited Washington and got in touch with
me to refjuest my help in getting him a copy of a Federal Communica-
tions Connnission monitored leport of a broadcast summary from
Yenan of a speech given by Mao Tse-tung to the Communist Party
Congress. I told Jaffe that I did not handle such material and had no
idea whether it would be available to him. I suggested that he come
to the Department and that I would introduce him to the responsible
officer who would be able to give him a copy if permissible. Jaffe did so
and I took him to the appropriate officer in the Division of Chinese
Affaii-s, Avho said that it was quite customary to give such material to
1274 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LSTVESTIGATIGN
interested writers and gave Jaffe a copy on tlie spot. The Yenan radio
was very weak and the reception of its broadcasts often badly garbled.
This was the case with this particular broadcast. Late in the after-
noon, the officer called me and said that FCC had received a much
clearer second broadcast. He recalled that Jaffe had been interested
and asked how he could contact him. I said that I knew where Jaffe
was staying and could take it to him. This was just about closing time
in the afternoon. I picked up the monitored report, walked over to
the Statler Hotel where Jaffe was staying, and called him from the
lobby. My recollection is that he came down in the elevator, I handed
the report in an envelope to him and left.
Some days later, Jaffe telephoned me and said that T. A. Bisson,
whom I had met briefly in China in 1937 and at the IPR, would like
me to come up on Sunday, May 19, for a picnic lunch at his home on
Long Island. At the same time, he gave some excuse w^hy Bisson w^as
unable to contact me directly. I agreed to go and arranged to spend
the Saturday night at Gayn's. Later Jaffe telephoned again and said
that the Gayns were spending the evening at Kate Mitchell's and that
T should coiiie there to meet them. I did not go up to Kew York until in
the evening and arrived at Miss Mitchell's about 10 or 10 : 30 p. m. for a
drink before going home with the Gayns.
The plans, it developed, were that the Jaffes, Miss Mitchell and the
Gayns were also going to Bisson's. Jaffe picked us up the next morn-
ing and clrove us all there in his car. The Sunday lunch was a picnic
inthe Bisson's garden at their home on Long Island. During the after-
noon, we took a short walk down to a nearby beach. Miss jNIitchell out-
lined a book which she was writing on China and said that she was
particularly interested in getting material on the recent trend of the
Kuomintang toward greater emphasis on Chinese classical ethics and
philosophy. She asked for suggestions on recent material and from
memory I mentioned several publications and other public materials
which I knew of. This was the only conversation with Miss Mitchell
of which I have any specific recollection.
On May 29, I was invited by a Miss Eose Yardoumian, whom I
had met "at the "Washington office of the IPR and at several social
functions, to attend a farewell party for Lieutenant Roth, who was
being transferred to the Hawaiian Islands. I had not known that
Jaffe was coming and was rather surprised when he again telephoned
jne and asked me to see him in his hotel and go with him to the party.
Apparently his reason for wanting to see me was to press the request
for information on the trend toward Confucianism of the Kuomin-
At the time of my arrest on June 6, only 8 days after this occasion,
I described to the FBI my recollection of the events of this evening as
During our conversations at his hotel before going to dinner, Jaffe said that
Miss IMitflicH was writing a book on China and that be was helping her with
material. Tie asked me something abont the trend toward Confncianism of the
Knomintaing. I recalled that a Confucianism Society had been established in
Chungking under very high official auspices in 1942 or 1943, and suggested that
he look for newspaper files, especially those of Chinese News Service, because
the event was given great publicity in the newspapers of Chungking at the time.
He said that he was afraid be did not have the files that far back, and
wasn't there some way that I could look the matter up. I mentioned that I
may have written a report about the Confucianism Society as I was in the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1275
Embassy iu Chunjiliing at that time. He then asked whether he could see the
report. I explaiiuHl that it was a part of tiie tiles and, ut cuurse, eould not be
taken out of the State Department but that I would try to look it up if there
was such a report and j^ive him the dates and enough information so that he
could find it in newspapers of that time.
Jaffe discussed the same question on tlie trend of the Kuomintang toward
Confucianism. I mentioned in passing tliat he couUl lind some pertinent ma-
terial in a study of Kuomintaiig- propaganda. Again .laffe asked me for ma-
terial and I remarked that although 1 had made a stu(1y wliich included a long
list of wall slogans, it likewise was a part of the official files and could not
be removed. He pressed me to at least malce the material available to him with-
out necessarily removing it from the files and showing it to him. On the spot
I remembered and told him a few common wall slogans which seemed pertinent
to his subject and mentioned them to him. I gave him to understand that I
would check the files to see if I could locate the date of the establishment of the
Confucianism Society and refresh my memory on some other pertinent wall
Several times during the evening Jaffe pressed me to be sure and remember
to do this for him.
This ])artv on May 20, 1945. was the hist time I ever saw Jaffe,
I have had no comniiniication with him since.
My associations with Larsen may be very shortly disposed of. Al-
tliouiih Mr. Larsen has testified that lie first met me in Chengtn,
Cliina. vvlien I was a babe in arms, I have no recollection of this
meetinof. The first occasion on which I recall meeting Mr. Larsen
was some time sliortly after my return to Washington in April 1945.
I was briefly introduced to him by Mr. Joseph Ballantine, Director
of the Ollice of Far Eastern Affairs of the State Department. Some
time later I believe that ISIr. Larsen and I were among a group of
other State Dejiartment employees who had lunch together. Mr.
Larsen has testified tliat this was a luncheon attended by Mr. John
Carter Vincent and that during the course of the luncheon Mr. Vin-
cent made certain derogatory remarks about General Hurley. As
far as my own recollection goes, I am inclined to think that Mr.
Vincent was not present and I certainly have no recollection of his
alleged connnents about (xeneral Hurley. As far as I recall, I had
no particular discussion with Larsen at this luncheon.
I think I may also have seen Larsen on some occasion in Jaffe's
compan3% l)ut I never had any occasion to have a discussion with
Larsen and Jaffe together. Finally, I saw Mr. Larsen in the early
morning of June 7, when we were arraigned before the United States
commissioner here in Washington and the next time that I have
any recollection of seeing him was when he appeared as a witness
at my recent loyalty board hearing.
When I Avas arrested by the FBI on June 6, 1945, I told the ar-
resting officers and interrogating agents that I was innocent of the
charges, that I was mystificvd by th^ arrest, and that I wished to
do what I could to help solve the matter. That has been and still
is my attitude. I gave the FBI a full statement of my associations
with the principals in the case. I waived immunity and appeared
at my own request before the grand jury.
Contrary to the assertion of Senator McCarthy that some of the
grand jurors voted to indict me, Mr. Hitchcock, the prosecutor in
charge of the case, has testified befoi-e this committee that the grand
jury imanimously vote a no true bill in my case.
I have told you, as I have previously told the FBI, as fully as
I am able of my dealings with Mr. Jaffe and of the memoranda
1276 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISWESTIGATION
which I showed to him. During the course of my loyalty board
hearing, a very considerable number of copies of reports and memo-
randa originally ])repared by me were shown to me as having been
found in Mr. Jaffe's possession. I testified in that proceeding and
I testify here that I have no knowledge of how these reports came
into Mr. Jaffe's possession. Certainly I have no disposition to con-
ceal my dealings with Jaffe. I have nothing reprehensible or il-
legal to conceal.
Quoting from the article in Plain Talk, which purports to have
been written by Larsen but which Larsen asserts was written by Isaac
Don Levine, Senator McCarthy has asserted that when the FBI took
over the investigation of the Amerasia case, it was found that I was
in communication from China with Jaff'e. I have s.en no evidence
that the FBI ever found any such thing and, as I have already testi-
fied, this assertion is false. I was never in communication in any
way, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Jaffe prior to the time that 1
met him in person on April 19, 1045.
With greater specificity, and again relying on the article in Plain
Talk, Senator McCarthy has charged :
Another document stolen from Military Intelligence consisted of 22 pages,
and one of the documents, of considerable interest, which was found in his pos-
session and that apparently reached Jaffe before it reached the State Depart-
ment, was John Service's report No. 58, a report higlily critical of Chiang Kai-
shek. Does the Senator follow me? Before that document reached the State
Department from Service, he had first mailed it to Philip Jafte.
Actually, I never prepared any such report. I have never seen
the report No. 58 referred to. I have discovered an identification of
this document and it transpires that it was prepared by the American
consul in Kunming. It occurred to me that that was probably at
a time when I was in Yenan, at least 600 miles away. As I say, I
have not to this day laid an eye on this document and could not, as
Senator McCarthy charges, have mailed it to Philip Jaffe before it
reached the State Department.
Senator McCarthy has charged that I was a friend and associate
of Frederick Vanderbilt Field. Actually, I have never met Mr. Field
in my life so far as I know, and I am certainly neither a friend nor
an associate of his.
Senator McCarthy has charged that Mr. J. Edgar Hoover has
publicly stated that there was a 100-percent airtight espionage case
against me. I have been unable to find any record of such a public
statement by Mr. Hoover. Upon request, he did not refer to any
such statement and the assistant to the Attorney General has recently
advised the Department of State that Mr. Hoover never made such a
Relying again upon the Plain Talk article, Senator McCarthy has
charged that former Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew in-
sisted on my prosecution and was forced to resign as a result of that
insistence. In view of the fact that after my clearance by the grand
jury in 1945, Mr. Grew w^as good enough to write me a personal note
expressing his satisfaction at my clearance, I have inquired of Mr.
Grew whether tliere was any basis for this charge made by Senator
McCarthy. I should like to introduce into the record at this point
a copy of the letter which IMr. Grew wrote me indicating that he never
insisted upon my prosecution apart from his desire that any guilty
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION 1277
person be prosecuted, that us lie had earlier stated, he was shocked
at my involvement and was gratified by my clearance and that his
resiirnation from the Department of State was dictated purely by
Senator Tydixos. Put it in the record at this point.