entitled "Plan of Battle Operation for Soldiers," a paper of such im-
portance that Army officers were subject to court martial if they lost
Con<j:ressman Frank Fellows, a member of tlie Committee on the
Judiciary which investigated the grand jury which failed to indict
Service — incidentally, the committee's report shows that some of the
members of the grand jury voted for his indictment; that is in the
House report — wrote a minority report in which he stated :
The author of the resolution under which this committee assumed jurisdiction
stated upon the floor of the House, "The President authorized the arrest to be
made and the arrests were forbidden by the State Department."
Under Secretary Joseph C. Grew very urgently insisted upon a pro-
secution of the six individuals who were picked up by the FBI oil
charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. He thereupon immedi>
ately became a target in a campaign of vilification as the culprit in
the case rather than the six who had been picked up by the FBI.
I wish the committee would keep in mind when we are talking about
Service we are talking about the same Service whose loyalty report
was sent back to the State Department on March 3, 10 days ago, with
the request that they look it over again and appoint a new board
this time. It is the same Service, so there are some men over in the
Civil Service Commission loyalty board who certainly are loyalty
Lieutenant Roth wrote a series of articles for a New York paper
and published a book in which he vigorously attacked Grew for his
opposition to the Communist sympathizers in the State Department
insofar as the far-eastern policy was concerned.
Under Secretary Grew, after a lifetime in the diplomatic service,
resigned, and President Truman announced that Dean Acheson would
take over the post of Under Secretary of State.
''During my conference with Mr. Jaffe in October," Larsen said,
'•he dropped a remark which one could never forget," and here is
what Jaffe had to say : "Well, Ave've suffered a lot, but anyhow we
got Grew out."
I might say that in the article in which I am quoting Larsen, the
article in Plain Talk, he quotes Joe Davies as saying that one of the
conditions of Acheson's taking over was the resignation of Grew.
Tliat is the quotation from Larsen's article in Plain Talk.
In regard to the legal handling of this case, the following is found
in Plain Talk in an article by Larsen :
While public attention was largely focused upon extraneous issues, the Espi-
onage case itself was following a special course behind the scenes. It appeared
that Kate Mitchell —
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 10
136 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVE'STIGATION
one of the coeditors of Amerasia and one of the codefendants —
had an influential uncle in Buffalo, a reputable attorney by the name of James
M. Mitchell, former president of the New York State Bar Association. Mr.
Mitchell was a member of a very influential law firm in Buffalo, Keneflck, Cooke,
Mitchell, Bass & Letch worth. The New York City correspondents of that law
firm include the most redoubtable Col. Joseph M. Hartfield, extremely well known
and extremely influential in Government circles in Washington. Col. Hartfield,
who is regarded by some as one of the most powerful political lawyers in the
country, made at least four trips to Washington where he called on top officials
of the Department of Justice in the matter.
In that connection I would like to quote a<^ain from Congressman
Dondero's talk on the House floor, in which he stated :
I have lieretofore charged and reiterated now that the court before whom these
cases were brought was not fully informed of the facts. A summary of the
court proceedings has been furnished to me, which shows no evidence or exliibit
obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation presented to the court.
This, incidentally, was not the FBI's case. They were not trying the
case. They merely presented the evidence.
.Jaffe's counsel told the court that Jaffe had no intention of harming the Govern-
ment, and United States Attorney Hitchcock told the court there was no element
of disloyalty in connection with the case. If that is the fact, may I respectfully
ask wliat purpose did these individuals have in mind in stealing these particular
Had this same thing happened in certain other governments, these people would
undoubtedly have been summarily shot, without a trial. Let us not forget we
were still at war at that time with Germany and Japan when these files were
stolen, and Jaffe, in whose possession they were found, had been for more than
10 years a leader and heavy financial supporter of Communist propaganda causes,
according to the FBI.
As I stated above, after the grand jury failed to indict Mitchell,
Service, and Roth, the House passed a resolution in wliich it directed
( he Committee on the Judiciary —
to make a thorough investigation of all the circumstances with resrect to the
disposition of the charges of espionage and the possession of documents stolen
from secret Government files which were made by the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation "against Philip J. Jaffe, Kate L. INIitchell, John Stewart Service,
Emmanuel Sigurd Larsen, Andrew Roth, and Mark Gayn," and to report to the
House (or to the Clerk of the House, if the House is not in session) as soon as
practicable during the present Congress, the results of its investigation, to-
gether with such recommendations as it deems necessary.
In this connection let me point this out to the committee. When
I mentioned John Stewart Service in February of this year the
State Department then prepared a press release, something to tell
the people what had happened in this case, of course. In that they
stated that Joltn Stewart Service had been cleared four times. One
of the times they refer to is the Hotise investigation of the grand
jury. They failed to tell the people that a number of the members of
that grand jur}', but not the required 12, voted for the indictment of
Service. They failed to tell the public that that grand jury, as I will
point out later, in effect has said, as I can show, that it is not a ques-
tion of guilt that they were going into —
we are concerned with a question of whether or not the evidence was in such
fashion that it could be presented to the court to prove the guilt.
Now, if that is what the State Department calls a clearance, when
less than the 12 votes are present for indictment, then I say there
is somebody wlio has a bad conception of the loyalty rules and regu-
lations in that Dej)artment.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 137
This committee then confirmed a report of a theft of a vast number
of documents from the State, War, and Navy Departments', which
i'an<2ed in classification all the way from top secret to confidential.
Tliis connnittee report indicates that a nnnioer of tlie members of
the grand jury voted for the indictment of Service and Mitchell on
the espionage charges, but that the required number of 12 did not so
It will be noted that the connnittee was not appointed for the pur-
pose of passing upon the guilt or innocense of the espionage suspects,
l)ut the connnittee was appointed for the purpose of investigating the
Avay that the case was handled and to make recommendations. The
committee did not in any way question the theft of the documents.
Incidentally, the committee said nothing to indicate that they thought
Service was not guilty. Howevi-r, it seemed to place a great deal of
stress upon the fact that the documents might not be admissible in
evidence because of the method of obtaining them.
For example, on page 5 the report states as follows :
4. Mauy of the identifiable documents might have had their evidential value
desitroyed* by reason of tlie possibility of the court's sustaining the defendants'
motions nrtai-liing the warrants of arrest.
VL Judicial decisions require scrupulous care to see that searches and seizures
are reasonable. While search and seizure on arrest may be made without a
search warrant, yet this is not so unless the warrant of arrest issued after
"probable cause" of guilt had been established by legal evidence.
On page 6 of the report the following statement is made :
If the warrant for arrest was not issued on "probable cause" substantiated
by facts, the evidence disclosed as a result of the search and seizure incident
to the arrest based on such a warrant should be subject to suppression and,
therefore, not usable as evidence of the crime for whicli the arrest was made.
I think this is extremely important in considering this Service case
and considering any statements that he was cleared by this grand
jury. The House committee, in effect, says that the reason they are
not taking action, not against Service — they had no right to take
action against Service — the House committee says :
The retison we are not taking action against the grand .iury in this case is
because, while in effect all of those documents were stolen —
some foiu' or five hundred ; I forget the luunber —
they were ol)tained in such a manner by the FBI, under the search warrant,
that perhaps they could not be effectively used in convicting these men —
the six individuals who had stolen them.
Senator Ttdixgs. We understand your point, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I want to make it very clear in the record.
I am speaking not only for the committee but trying to make a very
complete record in all these cases, Mr. Chairman.
Wliile I have not seen any testimony of any of the grand jurors
themselves, and do not know whether it is available or not, the above
would seem to indicate that the committee felt that the grand jury
was disturbed, not so much by the question of guilt or innocence of
the defendants but by the question as to whether or not the guilt or
innocence could lie proven. They apparently felt that much of the
material would not be admissible because of the method of search
138 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVE'STIGATION"
and seizure. The following comment will be noted on page 7 of the^
committee report :
Most of the items seized at Jaffe's ottice were typewritten copies. Some of such,
copies were proved to have been typed in one of the Government departments..
It may be fairly inferred that the originals of such copies were never removed,
but that copies were made at the department or auency where the original
Let me cite this for the benefit of the lawyers, especially, on the
committee. Here is what the committee report says in accnsing the-
grand jury. They say :
Most of the items seized at Jaffe's office were typewritten copies. Some of
such copies were proved to have been typed in one of the Government depart-
ments. It may be fairly inferred that the originals of siich copies were never
removed but that copies were made at the department or agency where the-
This seems to make it very clear that the committee, for some
unknown reason, felt that making copies of secret documents and then
delivering the copies to unauthorized persons placed the crime in a
diiferent class than if they had delivered the originals. It is rather
cliiRcult to understand this reasoning, in view of the fact that photo-
stats or copies of an impoi'tant secret document would normally be of
the same value to any enemy power as the original.
The committee further pointed out that an additional reason for
not finding the grand jury at fault is because any of the six: can still
be further prosecuted on the charge of espionage. That, of course,,
is no longer true. The statute of limitations has now run. The
majority report makes some excellent recommendations, which the
Secretary of State might well read. I especially call his attention to>
recommendations 1, 2, and 3 on page 9, which read as follows :
1. That the head of every department and agency of our Government see to-
it that more — much more — care be exercised in personnel procurement. That
all those considered for Government positions in every echelon be investigated
so tlK)roughly as to insure that no one be employed unless absolute certainty
has been attained that nothing in background, present attitude, or affiliations
I'aises any reasonable doubt of loyalty and patriotic devotion to the United
States of America.
That is very good advice for the Secretary of State if he will
2. That the watchword and motivating principle of Grovernment
employment must be : None but the best. For the fewer, the better ,^
unless above question.
3. Again the recommendation of the House committee —
That each and every present employee who fails to measure up to the highest
standard should be discharged. No house divided against itself can stand.
One of the members of the six-man committee, Congressman Han-
cock, was prevented by illness from participating in the report. Two
of the members of the committee wrote dissenting opinions, which
meant that the decision to absolve the grand jury of responsibility
was made by a 3 to 2 decision.
There are other valuable recommendations made by that House
connnittee, recommendations with which I do not think anyone can
I might say this : I am not criticizing the House committee for fail-
ing to recommend action against the grand jury. Wltile I think their
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATION 139
Teasonintr. wlion they say some of the docuinents were only copies and
tliei-efore they do not have the same strength as the originals, is rather
ridiculous, there were some competent hiwyers on that House com-
mittee. I understand, and I can see where they would decide that
even though the evidence was overwhelming to prove the guilt of
these six individuals, if the evidence were i^ot in such shape that it
•could be used in a court of law to convict under the circumstances,
they could well have said "We will not recommend any action against
the grand jury."
So that House committee, which was not considering the guilt of
Service but considering whether or not the grand jury was competent,
rendered a split decision, 3 to 2, and decided that they would not
hold the grand jury liable in this case, and that is the type of clear-
ance that the State Department refers to when they tell the country
"This man was cleared four times.''
Congressman Fellows, in his dissenting opinion, made the following
JafEe either took these docuaients himself, or his confederates took them
for him. And two of the documents found were top secret, so marked and so
desi.£nated. I can see no point in arguing that these papers may not have been
of much value. The thieves thought the.v were. The Government agencies
so ad.iudged them. And the facts show that the defendants could have had
their choice of an.v documents they wished ; they were given no protection so
far as the State Department was concerned.
That is the end of Congressman Fellows' quotation. He was a
member of the Un-American Activities Committee,
Tliis transaction, or rather a series of transactions involved, embraces the
unlawful removal of top secret, secret, confidential, and restricted flies from the
Department of State, in our National Government. This. .Air. Chairman, is a very
serious offense. In time of war, this is a most serious offense. When war is in
progress, or even in time of peace, it is of little or no concern whether the files
removed were originals or copies; the fact that information of either or any
classification was removed from the secret files in the Department of State and
was delivered to any individual, or group of individuals, who had no lawful
right to receive the same, is the essence of the offense.
I call the committee's attention to this. Here is where the majority
went wrong, for whether they were copies or originals, the crime was
the same :
Wlien that very secret information was thus unlawfully revealed to others, no
matter how the same was imparted to Mr. Jaffe, whetlier by an original, or by
copy, or by any other method, the real damage has been done.
There should not be any attempt made in the report to either minimize or
acquit anyone from the magnitude of the act or acts committed. The report
filed appears to at least attempt to either minimize or completely justify some
of the unlawful acts which were undoubtedly committed.
All of those who participated in any way in the i-emoval, or attempted removal,
of these documents from the Department of State, or who copied such reports
and thereafter delivered such copies to Mr. Jaffe, or to any other person, not
lawfully entitled to receive the same, should be prosecuted, and all those par-
ticii)ating. in any degree, in the unlawful acts under investigation should be
immediately discharged from their positions in our Government. The repoi't
should speak strongly and without any reservation upon that subject.
I might say, after this recommendation was made, Mr. Chairman, as
the Chair knows, not only was John Service reinstated, after they got
lid of Joe Grew, but he was placed subsequently in charge of promo-
tion and placement of personnel in the Far Eastern Division, or some
title such as that, so the State Department certainly did not take the
140 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVE'STIGATIGN'
advice of either the majority or the minority opinion of that com-
Again quoting from the minority opinion :
• The questions here involved are so grave and the offenses so great that no
effort should be made to protect or defend those who so offended, but the report
should be made both firm and strong — to speak the truth — but to place the blame
where the same rightfully belongs.
This is but a small portion of the pertinent background of Service,
but certainly, beyond doubt, it forever excludes this man as a security
risk, no matter what yardstick is used, and again may I say I con-
gratulate the Civil Service Loyalty Appeals Board in this case,
though not in some of the others we will bring up, for having the in-
telligence and guts to send this back and say that: the State Depart-
ment loyalty board who cleared this man did wrong, and the next time
we don't want the same men sitting on the board, and I certainly hope
that the State Department follows the advice of the Civil Service
Loyalty Appeals Board.
Again we have a known associate and collaborator with Communists
and pro-Communists, a man high in the State Department, consorting
with admitted espionage agents, and I wish to say to this committee
what I said on the floor of the Senate on P'ebruary 20, 1950 :
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in
China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to
work for the coniniunization of China. Strangely, however, he sent oflicial re-
ports back to the State Department iirging that we torpedo our ally Chiang
Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.
Later this man — John Service — was picked up by the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation for turning over to the Communists secret State Department informa-
tion. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the
Under Secretary of State, who insisted on his prosecution, was forced to resign.
Two days after Grew's successor. Dean Acheson, took over as Under Secretary
of State, this man John Service, who had been picked up by the FBI and who
had previously urged that communism was the best hope of China, was not only
reinstated in the State Department but promoted. And finally, under Acheson,
placed in charge of all placements and promotions.
I might say I think the Avord "all" should not have been in that
speech. I believe it was only in charge of placements and promotions
in the far-eastern area.
Mr. Chairman, today this man. John S. Service, is a ranking officer
in the policy-making group of "untouchables" on duty in Calcutta,
India, one of the most strategically important listening posts in the
w^orld today, and since the fall of China the most important new front
of the cold war.
Five times this man has been investigated as to his loyalty and his
acceptance as a security risk to the Nation.
Wliat possible reason could there have been for even a second in-
vestigation of his record?
He was not an acceptable security risk under Mr. Acheson's own
"yardstick of loyaltj- '■ the day he entered the Government.
He is not a sound security risk today.
I am going to try to finish out a short one. I would like permission
to finish it even if the bell does ring before I get through.
Senator Tydings. All right. Senator. We wdll give you the time.
Might I ask if you have an approximation of the amount of time
you would like to have to finish this?
STATE DEPARTME:NT employee loyalty INVEiSTIGATION 141
Senator McCarthy. It will take some time on this, Mr. Chairman.
Tlien I have a sizable number of names which I wish to present to the
committee, not in the public record but some for the staff, now that a
staff has been appointed. I cannot finish it between now and 12
Senator Tymngs. We will wait a little longer. Go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. I might say that I am very gratefid for the
fact that I have been able to put my case on in the manner that I have
been in the last 2 days. I want to thank the Senator very much.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator jNlcCarthy, of course we are going to re-
serve the right to ask you some questions. We are not doing it now
because we do not want to interrupt you.
Senator McCarthy. Absolutely, and I certainly will be here for
any questions you want to ask.
if the Chair wants to ask questions about the last case
Senator Tydixgs. Inasmuch as we have let them all go by with no
opportunity for interrogation, we will have to go back and fill in
things we will want to know.
Senator McCarthy. Very good.
I would like to mark these. Mr. Chairman, as exhibits 36, 37, 38
Senator Tydixgs. It has been suggested that you use the three
initials of the subject in each case. Then there probably won't be any
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I can do that.
Senator Tydixgs. I think that will be a good way to handle it.
Senator McCarthy. I have already marked these.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead and leave them that way.
Senator McCarthy. 39. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48.
Exhibits Nos. 36 to 48 I now offer as evidence in this case, if that
is agreeable to the Chair.
Senator Tydixgs. The exhibits will be printed at the appropriate
place in the Senator's remarks.
The Department of State of the United States operates with thou-
sands of employees and requires a tremendous budget which has
aided materially in placing on the American people the greatest tax
burden they have ever been called u])on to bear.
All but a_ small handful of those employees are honest and loyal
Americans. The State Department is their life work. They have
given to it years of service, unquestioned loyalty ; and they have served
it with great pride.
In the far-flung places of the world, these loyal men and women
have spent their lives and exercised all their ingenuity to give to their
De])artment and their Government every possible bit of information
and advice they thought useful.
Career employees of the State Department, by virtue of their long
residence in every foreign country on the globe and their close asso-
ciation, and many times friendship, with citizens and officials of those
countries, have had access to, have reported on, every phase of eco-
nomic and political affairs in the nations to which they are attached.
These are the real "experts" of the State Department.
It is a tragedy when we find the advice and experiences of such
outstandingly able employees stored in a multitude of steel filing
cases and disregarded while the Department of State's closed corpora-
tion of "'untouchables" call upon pro-Communist idealists, crackpots,
142 STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOIALTY INVESTIGATION
and, to put it mildly, "bad security risks" to advise them on American
The next case I wish to call to the attention of the committee is that
of Prof. Frederick L. Schuman.
Dr. Schuman is on the faculty of Williams College and is a highly
placed lecturer with the Department of State.
It is the function of Dr. Schuman to explain how to be better diplo-
mats to veteran diplomats and career men of the State Department
in its Division of Training Services.
Senator Tydings. I do not know this gentleman or anything about