concerning a reported conversation on May 8. 104.5, between Philip .T. .Taffe and
John Stewart Service at the Statler Hotel, on which occasion Service made the
statement, "W-ell, what I said about the military plan is, of course, very secret."
As you well know, it has been a policy of long standing for the Department of
.Tustice to respectfully decline to comply with the demand for the production of
the investigate records of this Department before the various committees of
Congress. The reasons for this policy are, of course, obvious, and have recently
been completely stated before your subcommittee by the Attorney General and
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
However, in the present situation, the Department is confronted with several
impelling factors not usually encountered in a matter of this Icind. One sentence
from an investigative report has already found its way into testimony token at an
executive session of your .subcommittee and has been widely publicized. In view
of llie significance of the sentence quoted, the Department has concluded that the
pul)]ic interest requires that the immediate context in which this sentence appears
should be made available to your committee. Therefore, there is transmitted
herewith an exact copy of the transcript of the conversation between .Taffe and
Service relating to the sentence in question.
Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. ISrcTnerney brought this up to me at my request. T made request
for the full testimony, and inasmuch as it is secret, I feel that I would
1392 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
like to ask liini into the room wliile we are discussing this phase of it,
not only that we may ask him any question pertaining thereto but, as
he brought it up and is the man who prepared it, I think it in keeping
that we have him in tlie room.
Senator Lodge. How do you mean : he prepared it ?
Senator Tydings. He is the man who brought it up and the man I
asked to get it for me. He brought it up personally this morning, and
he is familiar Vvith all the background, the getting of it and eveiy-
thing, and he would like to sit in so tliat ^^•e do not get the Department
in a false position because of nobody here to auswer a question that
might come up.
Senator Lodge. I want to be clear that this is a stenographic report
of a conversation. This is not a paraphrase or excerpts.
Senator Tydings. Oh no, no. All right ?
Senator Lodge. Yes; that is all right.
Senator Tydings. Let him come in.
(Mr. James M. Mclnerney, Assistant Attorney General, was ad-
mitted to the hearing room.)
Senator Tydings. I have just finished reading a letter from Mr.
Peyton P'ord to me, and it encloses the transcript of what happened.
I likewise feel that T must repeat now the following, which is a caveat
which goes with this testimony :
Most of the foregoiug information —
that is, what I am going to read shortly or have read —
regarding the contacts made by the vaiions principals and the documents wliieh
were exchanged were obtained tlirougb liighly confidential means and sources
of information wliicli cannot be nsed in evidence.
That is what I am advised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Lodge. Are they the author of that statement that you just
Senator Tydings. Yes. They gave it to me and said, unless this
was read with it, it would not have its correct connotation.
Senator McMahon. The boys outside want to know whether this is
open or closed.
Senator Tydings. I told them it was closed.
Senator McMatton. I did not have enough information because I
had been away, but they made this request that, if it is going to be
closed, they can be so told so they can go downstairs.
Senator Tydings. It is closed.
This information cannot be used, as I am advised, as evidence in
a court of, law. I am going to request everybody here that there be
absolutely no leak of any kind, manner, shape, or form, direct or
connived at, for the release of this testimony, until the committee
takes action formally on wdiat to do with it.
]\Ir. RiiETTS. May I say for my part, sir, I am perfectly willing to
make a representation to respect that request, if we are going to be in
executive session. We propose to scrupulously adhere to that.
Senator Tydings. In other words, we have gotten the Department
of Justice to break a precedent in order to give us this testimony,
and it is not the kind of testimony, for reasons that are obvious, that
might be used in a court of law. We are not a court of law. We are
not sitting here as a ci'iminal court, and I would appreciate it if every-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION 1393
body would make it a rioid ride that there be absohitely no dividgence
of what goes on here this morning until the committee formally
decides to turn it loose or whatever they want to do with it.
Senator ]\rr^lAiiox. I would like to say this on the record : That of
course I am bound, and would be bound, and always have been bound,
by those kinds of agreements; but I want to reserve — and I think it
is unnecessary ])erhaps to say it — the right to decide whether, because
it isn't available for introduction into evidence, it still might not
prevent us from divulging it. That, of course, is a question which
"will be postponed, and I reserve the right to determine that then,
and in the meantime to keep absolute secrecy.
Senator Lodge. AVait a minute. I didn't understand that remark
of Senator McMahon, You say you reserve the right to release the
Senator Mc]Mahox. I say I am bound by this agreement for secrecy
now. I reserve the right in deliberations of the full committee as
to whether or not this committee should release this testimony.
Senator Lodge. Before the full Foreign Relations Committee, you
Senator Mc^NLvhon. Or to the public.
Senator Lodge. You aren't proposing to do it unilaterally yourself ?
Senator McMahox. That is what I am emphasing. I am bound
by the agreement and I keep those agreements, unlike some other
peo}>le that you and I know. What I am trying to say is that, by doing
so, I do not foreclose my right to vigorously urge and vote for a re-
lease of this testimonv at some date in the future. In the meantime,
. 1 ...» . '
with me it IS executive testimony.
Senator Lodge. I would like to say that I take the same position,
and I have been very much shocked at the way in which great pieces
of this testimony have appeared verbatim in the newspapers. Wlien
it happened once I thought, well, that was an indiscretion or a remark-
able illustration of journalistic enterprise. It hasn't just happened
once; it happens all the time, and of course that is another reason
why I consider that a congressional committee is a poor device to
try to do this kind of work, because it is entirely unprofessional; it
means you never can really do a bang-up job if you cannot feel that
when you are speaking in private you are speaking in private. Now,
as it is, when you speak in this committee you have always got to have
the afterthought in the back of your mind that everything you say
is going to be in the papers 3 days later, and if you want to say some-
thing that should not be in the papers you just do not say it, and that,
of course, vitiates largely the effectiveness of this investigation.
Senator Tydixgs. I agree with you.
Senator Lodge. It is very bad, and it is one of the reasons why this
is not a good way to go at this kind of job.
Mr. MoRGAX. Mr. Service, you will recall that during the course of
this interrogation of last Thursday and Friday some reference was
made to the meeting between you and Mr. Jaffe at the Statler Hotel on
]\fay 8. 1945. Do you recall that discussion?
Mr. SERvifK. I remember some reference was made; 3'es.
1394 STATE D'EPARTMEKT EMPLuTEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. SERVICE— Resumed
Mr. Morgan. Since that time, Mr. Service, have you endeavored in
any way to refresh your recollection concerning the nature and details
of this conversation?
Mr. Service. I have been continuously trying to refresh my recol-
Mr. Morgan. In passing, in point of time. May 8 — let's see; that
was after VE-day and before VJ-day ; is that right ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. By the way, does anybody know precisely when
Mr. Ehetts. There are two different determinations.
Mr. McInerney. May 8.
Senator Tydings. And VJ-day was August 14 ?
Mr. Rhetts. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. So, this conversation occurred, then, on VE-day; is
til at correct ?
Mr. Service. I have no recollection of the coincidence of the events.
Mr. Morgan. I merely mentioned that with the thought that it
might refresh your recollection to some degree on the conversation.
As I understand, it does not ?
Mr. Service. No,
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Service, there is frankly in my mind some question
relative to the propriety of the divulgence of technical material of
this character, and before I proceed to read into our record, and there-
after ask your comments concerning this conversation, I would like to
know whether I have your permission and the permission also of your
attorney to read and to incorporate the verbatim text of this conver-
sation as reported to us by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into
Mr. Ehetts. In that connection, sir, could I make a preliminary
I may say, first of all, I take it whether or not yon have my per-
mission you can read it into the record, but I would like to inquire
whether the material that you have purports to be a transcription of
a recording, whether it purports to be the notes taken by a person
who is alleged to have listened to the conversation, or precisely
what it is, because, as I believe I suggested a few days ago, in
assessing this kind of material a person who is listening with ear-
phones and taking notes may have gotten accurate notes, may have
gotten inaccurate notes, depending upon how familiar he was with
the subject matter under discussion, and so on. So, I would appreci-
ate it if you would possibly tell us whether tliis is an actual re-
cording — —
Senator Tydings. Disk?
Mr. Ehetts. A copy of a disk, or whether it is notes taken by a per-
son who listened, or what it is.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I think we have with us this morning
Mr. McInerney, who heretofore has been sworn in this proceeding,
and I think probably he would be in a better position than any of us
to answer that question.
STATE DEPART.MEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1395
Senator Tydixgs. I think wo ouglit to ask ]Mr. JNIcIneiney if lie
could answer that question.
Afr. ^NrclNKRXF.T. It is a record, a disk record.
Senator Tydings. This is a copy of a disk record played back, and
the words taken down for our use; is that correct?
Mr. JMcInehxet. Yes.
Senat(n' I'ydtxos. You still have the record?
Mr. Mc'lxiRXKY. I don't know, sir. This was taken from the
Senator Tyhixos. It was not taken stenographically ?
Mr. jMcInekxey. No, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. It was taken bj^ a device that could be rebroadcast
from the record itself without any other interpretation ?
Mr. McIxERxEY. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. When was this done?
]\Ir. McIxERXEY. Simultaneously.
Senator Tydix^gs. May 8.
Mr. Rhetts. In that connection, Mr. Chairman — and I hope you
do not think I am quibbling — I would like to suggest that, if there is a
record, it would be desirable to have that record played. I made that
request before, and if it is, as Mr. Mclnerney suggests, that type of
material, my own belief is that that would be the most useful method
of assessing the content of it. I nnike that suggestion to the committee.
Senator Tydix-^gs. What is your answer to that, Mr. Mclnerney?
Mr. McIx'ERXEY. I would doubt very much if the actual record is in
existence any longer.
Senator Tydixgs. I would like to ask, too, in order to give every-
body here a "fair shake," Mr. Morgan, whether you think it would be
inappropriate to let counsel for Mr. Service see this transcript before
he binds himself to any answer on it, or whether he should not handle
it in that way.
Mr. Morgan". As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a ques-
tion of propriety involved in the divulgence of information obtained
from technical sources of this kind, and I would like, certainly, to
have the concurrence of INIr. Service and his attorney before I read it
into the record, and inasmuch as there appears to be some question as
to the disposition at least to go along with the idea of my reading it
in at this point, inasmuch as the record was made, I personally think
it might be well to let them read this over in our presence and then
commit themselves one way or the other as they desire.
Senator Tydixgs. So long as you haven't the original document here,
■which would be the record itself, and this is a transcript, I would think
that fairness and justice would dictate that before Mr. Service or his
counsel commit themselves to tliis they ought at least to have a chance
to look at it.
Senator Lodge. Supposing Mr. Service's counsel objects to this.
Then what ?
Senator Titjix^gs. Then we can go ahead with it anyway, but it would
be nuich better to get it with his assent.
Senator Lodge. "'Assent'' meaning that he approves the accuracv
Senator Tydtx'Gs. No; I mean if he says "I am perfectly willing to
have this go into the record for wh.atover it is woi-th. and to be intei'-
rogated about it." That is what we would like to know.
1396 STATE department: employee loyalty investigation
Senator Lodge. Supposing lie says "I am not." Then what?
Senator Ttdixos. We can put it in anyway, but obviously, it would
nave a different standing.
Senator Lodge. Not being a lawyer, these points elude me. It seems
Senator Tydings. It couldn't be offered at all under the rules of
evidence. That is what the caveat on the top of the letter says. So
we are putting something in here that would have no place in a court
Senator Lodge. If this was a court of law, I wouldn't be here But
1 don t understand ; if we are investigating the question of whether
there were military plans made available by Mr. Service to Mr Jaffe
it seems to me we have got to look into this, whether Mr Service's
lawyer agrees or not. Therefore, I don't see why he should be asked.
1 don t object to it, on the understanding that I am not agreeing to
the necessity of asking him.
Mr. Service. I am not a lawyer either, Senator Lodge, but my owu
feeling with regard to the question Mr. Morgan asked is that I don't
what IS there. I don't know how ])erf ect the recording was, how com-
plete. It 1 could hear a phonograph record and could recognize my
voice, then I obviously could have no objection.
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Lodge. I do not feel that it is consistent with my duty as ,
a member of this committee to be bound by any objection that counsel
may make as to the iiitroduction of this verbatim transcript, and I feel
It is my duty, whether he likes it or not, to read that transcript and to
toJlow up the leads that it may develop.
Mr. Morgan. When you used the word "counsel" you meant Mr.
Service's counsel, I presume, Senator ?
Senator Lodge. That's right.
Mr. Morgan Referring again to the observations I made a few
moment^s ago, that m view of the question of divulgence involved in
this matter and my question was directed to the Communications
Act of 19o4 as amended, I would like again to suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, that if we can obtain the consent and assent of Mr. Service and
his attorney to the reading of this in the record, I think it would be
well It they do not so assent, then I think certainly the committee
should determine whether we will incorporate it in our record despite
their nonconcurrence. ^
Senator Tydings. I think that is a good procedure
Senator Lodge. You say the committee should determine: you do
not say the committee should do it? 5 .y ^
^^ll'^f'i '^^''^^''^- ^'"^^ '^^'' "^* *l^ey c^o i^ot give their con-
Senator Lodge. He is not reconnnending that we do it is he«
Mr. Morgan. I would say on that score, Senator, that I would have
some question about recommending that this committee do somethincr
that might constitute an affirmative violation of law and in that
connection I might say I think I have rather intimate knowledge or
acquaintance with the Communications Act and the provision with re-
spect to the divulgence of information obtained throuo-h the intercep-
tion of telephone conversations or the utilization of telephone de-
vices. I think certainly that in the event counsel for Mr Service re-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1397
fuses to extend his consent, tlien the committee can meet, possibly
here, and make a determination on this. At the moment I think we
liave not that bridge to cross, because Mr. Service and his attorney
may certainly agree to it.
Senator Lodce. I am just talking about sup|)osing they do not
agree. That is the point where I don't understantl what you are driv-
ing at. I frankly don't understand it, because I am not a law\ver and
I can't conceive that under S. 231 this committee was directed to do
anything that is prevented by any laws, and it seems to me that all I
need to know, the only law I need to know to do my duty on this
connnittee, is Senate Resolution 231, and that directs me to make
a full and com])lete investigation. I just can't understand what this
tenderness is. I just don't get it.
Senator Tydixgs. Let me see if we can't make progress by first- not
crossing the second bridge if it isn't necessary. We may get over
the first one. I would suggest that we submit the matter to Mr. Rhetts
without binding the committee to any course of action pro or con,
just to see whether or not he will consent to the reading of it on be-
half of his client.
Xow. if he does not consent, we can still read it if we want to read.
it. I would like to know what his attitude is about it. That is all
we have before us at this stage of the game. When we decide that
question, we Avill take up the next one. We can't decide two ques-
tions at the same time.
Senator Lodge. Have we ever done this before? I do not recall
its ever being done before.
Mr. Morgan. I think in our proceeding this is probably the first
time we have ever had this particular problem before us. I frankly
believe that the committee is entitled to this information, and should
have it incident to its deliberations. I do think that if we can grace-
fully avoid any problem under the statute we should avail ourselves
of the opportunity to do so, and that is why I think perhaps we
should obtain, if we can, the concurrence of Mr. Service and his
Senator Tydixgs. So that we get it without violating the law, if
Let me ask, just in order that w^e might make progress, is there any
objection to letting Mr. Rhetts read it and getting his answer as to
whether or not he and his client are agreeable to us presenting it,
witliout binding us to any course of action, no matter what their
course of action might be ?
Senator Lodge. I make the statement I did before, that I consider
it is a duty to examine this document, whether jMr. Rhetts likes it or
Senator Tydixgs. I do, too. I agree with you thoroughly. I think
it is a duty we have, but I think we can proceed in a fashion that can
make that dutv more agreeable than it otherwise would be.
]\fr. ]MoRGAX'. Where do we stand?
Senator Tydixgs. I put it to the connnittee.
Senator L()d<;e. I do not understand what the issue is and, not un-
derstanding it, you can outvote me if you want to, but I am not going
to give my consent to a procedure the full implications of which I do
not understand, and I don't understand all this ap})ears to be on the
1398 STATE DiEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator TydtnCxS. Senator Lodire desires that we go ahead with the
reading of this transcript without asking counsel or his client, Mr.
Service or Mr. Rhetts.
Senator Lodge. I have made no motion. I just do not want it to
appear on this record that this occurred by unanimous consent, be-
cause I don't want to give my consent to a procedure the full technical
import of which I do not understand.
Senator Tydings. Do you want us to go ahead ?
Senator Lodge. You are trying to get unanimous consent to this
procedure, which is a technical legal procedure the full import of
which I do not understand. I would rather have you vote it.
Senator Tydings. My point is, I am asking you specifically, shall
we go ahead with the reading of an alleged conversation without ask-
ing "for the consent of either Mr. Service or Mr. Rhetts, his counsel?
That is all.
Senator Lodge. I think to me the procedure we have followed right
along is, we have evidence come in and we examine it.
Senator Tydings. Then that answer w^ould be "Yes," would it?
Senator Lodge. I would like to go ahead with this transcript. 1
would be perfectly willing to let him see it as a matter of courtesy.
It is the matter of his disapproval that I don't understand.
Senator Tydings. That would not deny us the right to go ahead,
notwithstanding if they disapproved, but if it was illegally obtained
the caveat says it cannot be used in evidence. If it were obtained,
it would make it stronger.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Morris, will you give me your opinion as a
lawyer on this procedure ?
Mr. Morris. Senator, I think if we allowed Mr. Service to read this
at the beginning, and if he assents to it, then the question doesn't
arise. We can simply proceed. Whereas, if he objects, then we can i
address ourselves directly to the problem and fight it out. I have
many scruples about this whole thing. In the first place, I don't
know whether it is illegal. There is a caveat there, but when the
FBI men were in here they indicated very definitely that this was a
microphone, that it was not a wire tap, and they would have no objec-
tion whatever to its public release.
Mr. Morgan. On the record, I don't think the FBI ever made any
such representation in our record as to that, that there would be no
objection to its public release.
I\Ir. Morris. Are you taking advantage, Mr. Morgan, of the fact
that we were off the record for a period?
Mr. Morgan. I never avail myself of anything, Mr. Morris, but
Senator Tydings. You have answered the question for Senator
Lodge. You say it would simplify the matter and eliminate the point
at issue if Mr. Service and/or his attorney would agree to its reading.
Senator Lodge. You don't object to this proceeding?
Mr. ]MoRRTs. I don't. But I want to be sure I make those reser-
vations on my own behalf, that we do not accept the caveat.
Senator Tydings. We are going to put it in anyAvay. It doesn't
malte any difference. But it is a whole lot better to get the assent
of the two yieople over here. There is no question about that.
All rig1)t: give it to Mr. Rhetts to read and let us get his opinion.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1399
Mr. RiiETTs. Mi<rlit I inquire, sir. whethor this purports to be a
verbatim transcript of the entire conversation of that morning?
Senator Tydings. That is my understanding. If you will start
at the beginning you will see why it isn't longer than it is.
Mr. Rhetts. It is not mere excerpts ?
Senator Tydings. It is not mere excerpts.
(Messrs. Rhetts and Service read the document under discussion.)
Mr. Rhetts. AVhile I recognize that you are not interested in the
pros and cons that go through my mind on this, I want to preface
my statement by reiterating what we have said throughout, namely
that to the extent that the committee has or that there exists some ac-
curate transcription of the conversation, we have said throughout
that we would like to cooperate with the committee and certainly let
the committee hear it. My difficulty with this paper here is that it
really reinforces my instinct before seeing it, namely, that the record
is the real thing that this committee ought to listen to.
This paper bears — in the first place, it is for the most part unintel-
ligible. In the second place it is internally inconsistent and, as I
say, largely gibberish. It makes no internal sense.
I am therefore understandably reluctant to consent to the introduc-
tion of this with any implication or suggestion that this is an accurate
transcription of a conversation. I really think that, upon examining