polluted; is that briefly the reason why?
Mr. Morgan. In answering the question as I did, Senator, we have
obtained a full and complete explanation from the prosecuting officials
who handled the case as to why they permitted the case of Jaffe to be
disposed of as it was.
To my mind, all that we could hope to obtain on that score is now
in our records.
Senator Tydings. We could criticize them, but we have got every-
Senator Lodge. As I understand it, the question of tainted evidence
is a question on which lawyers disagree among themselves, and not
being a lawyer myself, I feel justified in making the suggestion
Mr. Morgan. I will be glad to answer your question.
Senator Lodge. For whatever it is worth, that an outside legal
opinion be obtained as to whether evidence was tainted, even though
it is obtained pursuant to a seai'ch warrant and everything else, which,
I understand, was true in the case of the Amerasia documents.
Mr. Morgan. Tlie handling of the disposition of it insofar as Jafle
is concerned, yes ; that was the prime consideration so far as the Justice
officials were concerned.
The fact that they regaided the case to be fraught with a taint from
beginning to end, which was exposed by reason of an affidavit by Mr.
Senator Lodge. And the fact that they obtained a great many docu-
ments in a perfectly legal way does not, in your opinion, alter the fact
that everything w'as tainted?
Mr. INIoRGN. AVell, in that regard. Senator, there is quite a story
that we can go into on that, but I will handle it briefly in this way by
saying that, as I understand, the Department of Justice's explanation
and, of course, that is all we have, there were entries made of the
premises which served as the predicate for the acquiring of the legal
process employed in entering under a legal guise, and that, as a result
of the prior illegal entries, they therefore vitiated the legality of the
so-called legal entry. That is their position.
Senator Lodge. I would just like to suggest to you one thing.
Senator Tydings. Olf the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. On the record, do not your investigations disclose
that they made a number of legal entries into the Amerasia offices?
Senator Tydings. No.
Senator Lodge. Does not the record show that they obtained a great
many documents by perfectly legal methods?
Mr. Morgan. The record shows that the searches made in Amerasia
headquarters were made incident to an arrest warrant calling for the
arrests of Jaffe and Mitchell, let us say those two there.
Those warrants — and I am giving you now the version of the prose-
cuting officials — those warrants were based on evidence which, in their
opinion, was not legally obtained and legally admissible, and inas-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1457
much as the warrants were based on illegal considerations, the war-
rants themselves were not valid.
Now, going on, the Department of Justice, according to the testi-
mony of officials who have here testified, authorized the prosecution
of these defendants, knowing those facts on the theory, I presume,
that what the defendants did not know would not hurt them. The
case went on on that theory until one of the defendants, Larsen, found
out what had happened, and filed a motion to quash. That motion,
filed by Larsen, was the predicate for the action that was taken with
respect to Jatfe and with respect to Larsen.
Senator Lodge. Not being a lawyer, I am aware of the fact that
lawyers disagree violently as to whether or not it is true that the fact
that some evidence is obtained illegally vitiates all the rest of it, and
I suggest that we be in a stronger postion if we had a committee of
lawyers who are in active practice of the law, to pass on that question.
Mr. jNIorgax. In that connection, Senator, when I refer to having in
our records the story, I do not mean that they necessarily were right;
I mean that we have th.e conditions and considerations which they
say was responsible for the action which they took.
Senator Lodge. Have you got the answer to the question of why
Larsen was let olf with a "slap on the wrist?''
Mr. ISIoRGAN. Yes ; we have the answers to that.
Senator Lodge. Have you got the answer to why the charges against
those involved in the Amerasia case changed from conspiracy to vio-
late the espionage statutes by stealing highly confidential Govern-
ment documents to a simply' charge of conspiracy to remove Gov-
ernment records illegally?
Mr. Morgan. "We have that evidence in great detail.
Senator Lodge. Have you the answer to what methods were used
to extract secret documents from the files of the State, War, and Navy
Departments, the OSS, and the Office of War Information?
Mr. Morgan. I believe, pursuant to a specific question propounded
by Senator Tydings, we have the FBI's complete version of it.
Senator Lodge. Have you got the answer to the question of what
evidence was presented to the two grand juries?
Mr. MoRbAN. Yes. We have completely reviewed the proceedings
of both grand juries, and in that connection, somewhere along the
line someone has suggested that the proceedings of the first grand
jury were missing. That is in error. We have reviewed the complete
record of both grand juries.
Senator Lodge. Why was the first grand jury dismissed and the
case taken before a second grand jury, despite the fact that Federal
grand juries frequently are extended over their regular terms for un-
Mr. INIoRGAN. We have a complete answer with respect to that, if
you would like for me to give it to you.
Senator Lodge. Was that the answer that Mr. Hitchcock gave, that
the weather was insufferably hot?
Mr. ^loRGAN. We have the answer of "Sir. Hitchcock and also the
answer of Mr. McTnerney,
Senator Lodge. Well, the weather was pretty hot out in the Philip-
pines where the soldiers were fighting.
1458 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Have you got the answer to the question as to why the Department
of Justice felt that it had sufficient evidence to go before the Federal
grand jury and move for an indictment against the six arrested de-
fendants, and then subsequently decide that it did not have the evi-
dence to prosecute the three defendants indicted to the fullest extent
of the law?
Mr. Morgan. The answer to that is part of my previous answer that
they were proceeding obviously on the theory of what the defendants
did not know would not hurt them.
One of the defendants, however, found out, which, according to
the statement of the Department of Justice, destroyed their case.
Senator Green. You said what the defendants did not know would
not hurt them.
Mr. Morgan. Perhaps I should have said would not hurt the prose-
Senator Lodge. Do you know why tlie trial of JafFe and Larsen
was held in an unusual Saturday morning court proceeding without
any newspapermen being present ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir; we have that.
Senator Lodge. Have you the answer to why no evidence was pre-
sented to the presiding judge at Jaffe's trial with respect to Jaffe's
notorious and well-known Communist affiliations?
Mr. Morgan. We have the explanation of the responsible officials.
Senator Lodge. Does it satisfy you ?
Mr. Morgan. That is part of an ultimate conclusion that we will
have to make, Senator. I think on the basis of the record I will be
able to make a conclusion ; yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. Why did Special Assistant Attorney General Rob-
ert Hitchcock permit the lawyer for JafFe to make the statement of
facts in the court i? Is it not true that ordinarily in a guilty plea this
is the job of the prosecutor ?
Mr. Morgan. In that regard, as I understand it. Senator, on the
day prior to Jajffe's plea, every effort was made to prevent Jaffe's
knowing of the fact that Larsen had filed a motion to quash.
As the result of this fact they, the Department officials, contacted
Mr. Jaffe through his attorney, and recalled to the attorney's mind
the fact that he had suggested several times, in discussions at least,
the possibility of a plea, so Jaffe thereupon, with his attorney or, I
believe it was just his attorney at this point, proceeded to the Depart-
ment of Justice. There were Larsen in one room and Jaffe's attorney
in another room, and the latter not being acquainted with what Lar-
sen had done. The attorney for Jaffe connnitted himself positively
to plead his client or tlie defendant Jaffe guilty, with the understand-
ing that the Department of Justice would recommend a substantial
Now, as I understand briefly the position of Mr. Hitchcock in this
regard, he did not feel that lie could make an arrangement or a com-
mitment, as was made in that case and still go before a judge and lit-
erally attem])t to "throAv the book" at Jaffe, if you see what I mean.
That is his position.
Senatoi- Lodge.. That they had made a bargain ?
Mr. Morgan. Substantially that; and, of course, I do not know
whether you want my observation or conmient on that, but arrange-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1459
meiits are uv.ulc cortaiiil}' every day between United States attorneys
and defendants' counsel.
Senator T.onoi;. Well, with respect to that, (hirino- the war. of a
United States attorney making- a deal with a known Connnunist like
Jatfe, will shock some people.
Mr. MoROAN. That is their ex])lanation.
S(Miator T.onoK. T^o yon know why Mr. Hitchcock told the conrt
that he could complete the case in 5 minutes?
Mr. Morgan. We know what Mi-. Hitchcock had to say about it.
Senator Lodge. Do not worry, Mr. Chairman. T have not aot nmch
According- to a Scripps-Howard dispatch dated May 4, 1950,
Louis F. Bn.(l«Miz has iiotili^Ml the Tydiiiiis (■(unmittee that he i'^ prepared to tes-
tify about a series of frantic meetings called by the top leaders of the Communist
Party after the Anierasia arrests,
and that Budenz specifically mentioned the name of Robert W.
Weiner, formerly national treasurer of the Communist Party, as one
Avho attended these meetings and proposed that the Communist Party
raise funds for the Amerasia defense.
1. Is Budenz' letter a part of the record?
Mr. Morgan. Budenz' testimony is part of the record, and I re-
ceived a letter from Mr. Budenz in which he told me in the letter
that Mr. Weiner apparently had a hand in endeavoring to arrange or
to assist in financing the defense of Jaife. That is all I have from
him, which we can incorporate in the record at any time.
Senator Lodge. Does not the record also shoAv that Jaffe paid Lar-
Mr. Morgan. Larsen's fine?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. I believe that is Larsen's testimony.
Senator Tydings. Larsen testified to that effect.
Senator Lodge. Has the subcommittee called Weiner in connection
Avith the handling of this phase ?
Mr. Morgan. It has not.
Senator Lodge. Do you think we ought to?
Mr. Morgan. I think, Senator, the determination of that question
Tvill rest simply on this basis: We know Jaffe Mas a Communist; we
know it would be logical for the Connnunist Party to try to help him
in this defense. Weiner, being an active Communist, I do not think
yon w^onld get "boo" out of him.
Senator Tydixgs. I would be willing to concede that he did try to
raise money to try to help Jaffe.
Senator (tReen. If he did, you could not believe him.
Mr. Morgan. That is right.
Senator Lodge. Is it true that at one of these meetings that Budenz
refers to, that the suggestion was made that the Communist Party
turn on Jaffe and accuse him of spying for Jai)an? Have you heard
Mr. Morgan. No.
Mr. Morris. Didn't Budenz testify to that ?
Mr. Morgan. I believe, Mr. Morris, whether it was in his testimony
or in his conversation, I l)elieve Mr. Budenz did mention that the Com-
munist Party was trying in every way to disassociate itself from Mr.
Jaffe. I think that was substantially it.
1460 STATE DEPARTMEJvIT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. Their first strategy was to say that Jaffe was a Nazi
agent or Jap agent.
Mr. Morgan. That is right.
Mr. Morris. And then to disclaim him. But then they thought it
over and decided to change their tack.
Mr. Morgan. As I said, Senator, I personally would be convinced
that the Communist Party would break its neck to do everything it
could for Jaffe. I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
Jaffe's being a Communist, and I have a pretty good idea that Mr. Jaffe
is an espionage agent.
Senator Tydings, It would be hard to prove, but I am inclined to
agree with you.
Senator Lodge. Something is wrong somewhere, either in the en-
forcement of the law or the writing of the law, wdien in the middle of
a war we have got to make a bargain and a deal with a character like
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. On the record, has Jack Stachel, one of the eleven
convicted Communists in Xew York last 3'ear, been contacted with
respect to his knowledge of the Amerasia case ?
Mr. Morgan. When Mr. Budenz testified he suggested the calling of
Browder, Field, and Stachel, with a view to going into the question of
Mr. Lattimore's having Communist connections.
We subpenaed all three of them. Field and Browder, as you know,
both testified, and, in pertinent parts of their testimony, declined to
With respect to the Stachel subpena, his doctor certified to the court
that he has a very bad heart attack, confining him to his home. Now,
of course, I do not know how much credence we can place in that.
All the Communists up there sought to obtain permission from the
court to make a Nation-wide tour, of those that were prosecuted suc-
cessfully, and incidentally, I submitted an affidavit in which I stated
that Stachel has said that he had been confined to his home, and I
understand that was part of the reason for the court's denying the
request to permit them to go about the country.
Now, insofar as Stachel himself, as a witness here is concerned, I
think, Senator, that he has probably been the leading Communist in
the country, at least openly, the most effective one, and I do not think
we have any hope of getting anything from him. I personally would
recommend against calling him or insisting upon compliance with the
Senator Lodge. Have you seen Budenz' testimony before the House
Un-American Activities Committee, that Lieutenant Roth was in-
structed to contact Alger Hiss to see if the latter could use some influ-
ence in the case? Has the subcommittee looked into this angle of
the case ?
Mr. Morgan. That is testimony of Mr. Budenz ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. JNIoRGAN. I liad not seen it, and if there is such testimony, I
certainly would like to get it.
Senator Tydings. We will get it.
Senator Lodge. I suggest you look it up.
Mr. Morgan. May I ask, for my guidance and assistance, do you
know anything about it, Mr. Morris?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYAL^i' INVESTIGATION 1461
Mr, MoRuis. No.
Mr. Morgan. I am not prying, but what is the source of this?
Senator Lodge. My assistants devehjped tliis. Ask them.
Soiuitor Tydings. The House ITn- American Activities Committee.
Senator Lodge.* According to Budenz' testimony before the House
Un-American Activities Committee, Lieutenant Roth was instructed
to contact Alffer Hiss to see if the latter could use some influence in
^Y[\^■ liave we not called General Donovan to tell what he knows
about the case?
Mr. Morgan. I will answer it to this extent, Senator. Two of the
members of our staff interviewed General Donovan concerning the
Amerasia case, and the general advised them, asked them if they had
talked to yiv. Van Buren. and they said they had not. He said that
they should talk to him, that he knew about it as much as he, General
Donovan, did. We did call Mr. Van Buren.
Senator Tydings. He did not know anything.
Senator Lodge. I read his testimony.
Mr. Morgan. AVe have the complete memorandum concerning the
interview of General Donovan, which I want to put in the record
before our procedings are concluded.
Senator Lodge. Is that illuminating? Is there much in it?
Mr. Mor(;an. Very little, Senator.
Senator Lodge. Why have we not asked J. Edgar Hoover for his
opinion respecting the evidence in the case, and for confirmation of
the reported statement that he felt that the FBI had an airtight case'?
Mr. Morgan. Well, with respect to the matter of opinion, of course,
I would be very happy to see Mr. Hoover appear at any time, but I
think, consistent with the rather settled policy of the FBI, he would
decline to express an opinion with respect to legal matters affecting a
case in which his men had developed the facts.
I think that is rather a consistent policy, and probably a rather
Xow. with respect to this 100-percent airtight matter, all I know
about that, of course, is the letter which Mr. Peurifoy read into our
record, in which Mr. Hoover, according to the record, is supposed not
to have macle this statement.
Xow, if it is regarded as of paramount significance, and the com-
mitte Avants ]Mr. Hoover, my felings Avould be purely in the middle on
that. We know all the facts about the case, and irrespective of any
man's opinion as to what it might ])e. and Mr. Hoover's opinion would
certainly be a good one, of couise, 1 think we, having the facts as we
do. certiiinlv ought to be able to pass judgment on those facts.
Senator Lodge. Well, it seems to me that the Amerasia case, every-
one must admit, the Amerasia case, marked a failure in a great many
respects, and Mr. Hoover's opinion as to why the failure existed in
certain respects, would be interesting and, of course, I would be tre-
mendously interested to know ]Mr. Hoover's opinion as to the credi-
bility of some of these people.
Senator Tydin(;s. He would not give it to you, 1 believe.
Senator Lod(;e. Now, the credibility of Budenz' opinion on that,
what his credibility is. I do not knovv- what liasis he would have for
ex]iressing an opinion on that.
1462 STATE DEPARTAllftsT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Incidentally, we requested an estimate of Mr. Bu-
denz' credibility from the Department of Justice, and they have re-
plied that a man's credibility or a witness' credilnlity must be de-
termined incident to each particular proceeding; in other words, they
would not pass judgment on that, and that, of course, would not in-
dicate that he was not a highly creditable and credible witness at all,
but that has been their position, I am quite sure it is rather consistent
with their policy.
Senator Green. It would be unfortunate to call him and not get
any information from him at all, a declination of one kind or another.
Senator Lodge. Well, I am not going to admit that that is what
would happen. I think if he came up here he would be obliged to
Senator Green. That is the policy of the Department, we have been
told over and over again.
Senator Lodge. I have been told that the policy of the Depart-
ment is not to make any conclusions.
Mr. Morgan. As to the picture here, I think all matters relating
to situations of this kind are clear. I think Mr. Morris approached
the FBI on some questions, and I believe they had to clear them with
the Department of Justice, and then get the release, so on that score
I think the position has been very consistent, I believe. I do know it
was for the 8 yeai;s I was with the FBI, that the Bureau, by reason
of the fact that it is an investigative fact-finding body, declines to
assume to pass judgment upon those facts, saying that is a responsi-
bility of the prosecuting officials. They have always insisted that the
very minute they assume to pass judgment on facts they become not
an investigative agency, but a body that might conceivably be fraught
with some of the aspects of a gestapo, which Mr. Hoover has certainly
tried to avoid.
Senator Lodge. I do not want him to be a gestapo, but I think there
is something less than satisfactory
Senator Green. That is the distinction. One draws the facts, and
the other prosecutes.
Senator Lodge. I have never studied the set-up of the gestapo, I
am not an expert on it, and I do not know anything about it. But
I certainly think there is something less than a satisfactory handling
in reading these files, and finding this serious allegation of the person,
and reading through the file, and there is no confirmation of it. I
think they could confirm some of these facts without becoming a
Mr. Morgan. Are you referring now to the Amerasia situation or
the loyalty files ?
Senator Lodge. I am off that.
Now, the record indicates, as I read it, that immediately after the
Amerasia raid there was this apparently concerted outbreak in certain
newspapers by certain writers that the issue involved was the freedom
of the press, and it came very quickly and with apparent unanimity,
indicating some sort of teamwork. Have you looked into that?
]\Ir. INIoRGAN. You mean about the press coverage of the Amerasia
Senator Lodge. About the unannnity of the argument, and the
unanimity of timing.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1463
jNIr. MouoAN. Seiuitor, I have not tlie sli<rhtest doubt but what every
leftist publication or every pinkish publication in this country went
all-out to try to present this case in the least sifjnificant light.
Senator Lodge. And that they were tipped off from a central source ?
Mr. Morgan. You mean after the arrests Avere made ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
;Mr. Morgan. I have not sought to make any inquiry w^ith respect
to the press coverage, but I would not have the slightest doubt but
what they would try to play it down in every conceivable way.
Senator Lodge. Have you found out who was responsible for per-
mitting Roth to obtain a commission in the United States Navy ?
Mr. Morgan. That is what we were trying to find out.
Senator Tydings. I called the Secretary of the Navy today and
told him I had had an inquiry down there for 2 weeks, and I was very
disappointed. We are getting along with our hearing very well, and
I wanted to get it in. He said, "It is a funny thing ; it is on my desk
now. and I wanted to make sure that we answ^ered your queries thor-
oughly and comprehensively, and that has caused the delay." He
said, "It will be up there today."
Senator Lodge. Have you got any information concerning Roth's
connection with the Communist Party?
]Mr. Morgan. We have in the record — it is incorporated by reference
in the record — the FBI testimony indicating the nature of Roth's
affiliation with Communist groups and organizations.
I think you will also find. Senator, that in the Hobbs' committee
testimonv an indication of the fact that a man's having Communist
connections at the time of the war was not a bar, strange as it may
seem, to his obtaining a comjnission in the Navy.
Senator Lodge. Have you obtained yet that military evaluation that
I requested several weeks ago of the importance of these Amerasia
Mr. Morgan. No; we have not obtained a military evaluation of
them. Senator. The staff, however, has reviewed every one of them.
Senator Lodge. Well, what I wanted, when the Department of Jus-
tice came in here and made the astounding statement that in their
opinion these documents w^ere nothing more or less than teacup gos-
sip, and they were silly, I requested that we obtain naval opinion from
the Navy on the naval documents, and Army opinion on the Army
documents to see whether they were silly or not, and I think it is very
pertinent in view of the fact that the Department of Justice took it
upon itself to pass expert judgments on militar}- matters.
Mr. Morgan. Senator, if I may be pardoned an explanation here,
I would like to give it as to that.
The crime which these people were charged with was a conspiracy
under section 88 of the code. The punishment for conspiracy, the
maximum punishment under the law, is 2 years which, incidentally,
happens also to be the maximum punishment for conspiracy to steal
national defense documents.
Now. any conspiracy to violate any Federal law. no matter what
it is, is 2 years.
Under the one statute they had to ]irove as an element of proof that
these documents related to the national defense.
68070 — 50 — pt. 1 93
1464 STATE departmeuSt: employee loyalty investigation
They had another statute under which they did not have to under-
take this burden of proof, and yet under either statute they could
secure the same punishment for the defendant.