Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas J. Donegan was a special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General who headed a special grand jury investigation in the Southern District of New York. On December 15, 1948, the grand jury indicted Alger Hiss on two counts of perjury. ¹

Here are some interesting excerpts from The FBI Silvermaster File, No 65-56402:

Vol. 145, Series 3647-3665

PDF p. 10:
J.V. Fletcher to D.M. Ladd, September 30, 1948
Subject: Gregory [hand-written]
[citing from The Journal-American of 9-30-48]
“Supervisor Tuohy of the New York Office telephonically advised Mr. Keay at 11:50 a.m. today that the Journal-American of today carries an article by Howard Rushmore concerning the failure of the Attorney General to call his top-flight expert on Communism before the federal grand jury. The article goes on to point out that Thomas J. Donegan, who is working for the Justice Department, is a former top Communist expert of the New York Office of the FBI and was head of the “Comintern Apparatus Squad” ² which was investigating Communist activities. In this capacity, Donegan had access to records, reports, etc., regarding Communist espionage activities, including data relating to Arthur Adams and others. The article points out that the Grand Jury has failed to return an indictment on espionage and that in as far as is known neither Donegan nor any other members of the squad which worked under him at the FBI have been called before the Grand Jury. ³

Vol. 001, Serials x-50:

PDF p. 46:
D.M. Ladd to E.A. Tamm, November 15, 1945
I called ASAC Donegan, NYC, and advised him the Director had designated him to be in charge of a special assignment to handle all phases of the Bentley case, both New York and Washington, et al. … He was advised to see as soon as he took over what in the way of a special squad he would need, to take over and follow any and all of the surveillance around Washington and elsewhere.

Mr. Donegan stated he would make appropriate arrangements to take over this assignment.

PDF p. 47:
J.K. Mumford to D.M. Ladd, November 15, 1945, 2:50 PM
ASAC Donegan called from New York …
… Mr. Donegan advised they are taking another statement from Bentley which will be finished about Sunday…
… Mr. Donegan stated they have been reviewing their files on each of the names mentioned …

PDF p. 186:
D.M. Ladd to E.A. Tamm, November 18, 1945
ASAC Donegan from the New York Office telephonically contacted me at 3:25 pm, November 17, 1945, and advised that Agents were talking with her [Elisabeth Bentley]; that they had been talking since 9:00 am; and that they were going to quit around 5 pm. …

Mr. Donegan advised that … we have 12 men out [in physical surveillance of people named by Bentley] in the present time, but that more were available, 25 more could be put to work Monday, November 19, 1945.

PDF p. 187:
D.M. Ladd to E.A. Tamm, 9:53 am, November 19, 1945
ASAC Donegan, New York, called at the above time to advise … The Washington Field has on this case twelve men from outside and 25 of their agents. …

Mr. Donegan states that at the present time Miller is under surveillance and there is also a technical surveillance ⁴ on Miller. In addition to Miller, Perlow, Silvermaster, Ullman and Donald Wheeler are under surveillance. … Mary Price is in New York, and that office will cover her. …
… Mr. Donegan advised that today they should have some information as to Currie, Glasser, Sonia Gold, William Gold, Joseph Craig, Maurice Halperin, Julius Joseph, and Helen Tenney.
Mr. Donegan requests authority for a “black bag” job ⁵ on Bentley. He states she is in New York office today and will be questioned there all day and this would be a good opportunity to check her hotel room for its contents.
I advised Mr. Donegan I would submit this for clearance and advise him as soon as possible.
… We stated Bentley was talked to yesterday for five hours and it is hoped the interview will finish tonight, after which a statement will be prepared and if not sent tonight, Mr. Donegan will bring same [to Washington, D.C.] with him tomorrow. …

PDF, p. 199:
D.M. Ladd to E.A. Tamm, November 21, 1945, 11:55
At the above time Mr. Donegan called from the airport to advise that Gromov ⁶ just left on flight 32, Eastern Airlines … for New York. Mr. Donegan requested me to furnish description of Gromov to Mr. Osthelthoff in the New York Office….

Vol. 002, Serials 51-108 x/6

PDF p. 7:
D.M. Ladd to E.A. Tamm, November 21, 1945, 9:07 am
At the above time Donegan called from the Washington Field to advise that subject Gromov is leaving Washington on Eastern Airlines at 11:50 am today, flight 32, will arrive at New York approximately 1:30 am, The alleged meeting with Elizabeth Bentley is at 4:00 pm. Gromov is going to attend a dinner tonight at the Roosevelt Hotel from 7 to 9 pm which dinner is for Louis Quintanilla. ⁷ He will then endeavor to get reservations to return to Washington. Mr. Donegan stated he advised Mr. Osthelthoff in New York this morning to have some agents at the airport in an endeavor to institute a loose surveillance on Gromov. … The orders are to keep a loose surveillance and if he looks too “hot” to get away from him.
I asked Mr. Donegan if the spot itself is planted and he replied that it is. He stated further that if they have a good contact at the Roosevelt Hotel, they will try to find out more about the dinner Gromov will attend. …
Mr. Donegan states that after going over Bentley’s new statement…, it was found out that there are thirteen new people that will have to be put under surveillance. He stated on ten of these the setups will require two men each and further that a surveillance of Gromov will require more men. He stated Mr. Hennrich will need more personnel and an estimate which is conservative would be twenty-five more men.
Mr. Donegan stated he and Carl Hennrich are going to look at some of the places today, such as Silvermaster’s, etc., to ascertain from outside the possibility of making setups so entrance into the places can be obtained. The technicals are going in as fast as possible….

Vol. 016, Serial 376 to 420:

PDF pp. 105-106:
p. 105
Washington and WFO to Director and SAC, Jan. 23, 1946, teletype
… In accordance with a conversation had this morning between ASAC Donegan and Mr. Lish Whitson of the Bureau, informant [Elizabeth Bentley] was requested to get in touch with Earl Browder some time this evening … Informant has an appointment to see Browder this evening… and will advise agents as to the results. …

PDF p. 147
D.M. Ladd to E.A. Tamm, December 3, 1945
At the above time, ASAC Donegan, New York Field Division, called regarding the captioned case. …
Mr. Donegan then stated that subject Bentley was very reluctant to sign her statement. Bentley is of the opinion that her statement is all that is necessary to put the subjects in jail. He stated that in this connection the fact that Gromov is returning to Russia must be considered, Mr. Donegan stated it has been indicated that Gromov is not returning to the United States.

I [Ladd] stated … we should send material to the State Department calling their attention to Gromov’s departure, and then let State [Department] take steps to either stop Gromov’s leaving or delay the visa, or hold clearance on air transportation, … ⁸

[In mid-1946, Thomas Donegan transferred to the Department of Justice]

Vol. 098, Serials 2183 to 2210

PDF p. 38:
E.A. Tamm to The Director, Office memorandum, February 2, 1947
Mr. Tom Donegan stopped in my office and advised that he had a conference with the Attorney General this morning as a result of which the Attorney General instructed him to carefully review the facts in the Gregory case and make a recommendation to the Attorney General as to what action the Department should take. The Attorney General asked him to contact Mr. Vincent Quinn in New York and to arrange to have Quinn work with him so that they could submit a joint recommendation. The Attorney General is to contact Quinn and arrange for him to work with Donegan.
Donegan stated that at the time he left the Bureau, there were no facts in the Gregory case which would sustain a successful prosecution and that unless very substantial evidence had been developed in the meantime, he did not believe there was a case which could be prosecuted. …

PDF p. 51:
E.A. TAMM to the Director, March 10, 1947
I think we should hold in abeyance the recommendation in the attached letter from the New York Office that all of the subjects in the Gregory case be interviewed until Mr. Donegan and Mr. Quinn in NY actually submit their recommendations on the case to the Attorney General. … I personally doubt the value of interviews with certain of the subjects, particularly former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury White.

I agree
H.

Vol. 096, Serials 2176-2181

PDF p. 57
J.K. Mumford to D.M. Ladd, March 11, 1947
… Vincent Quinn in the United States Attorney’s office… talked to the Attorney General… it appears settled that the Department will not proceed with prosecution in this case, although he did not know for certain whether the matter would be presented to a Grand Jury for a nol pros.

PDF p. 54
D.M. Ladd to the Director, April 4, 1947
Vincent Quinn dropped in this office this afternoon … He stated that he and Donegan had gone over the Gregory Case, that he was going to advise the department that in their opinion no prosecution could be instituted in view of the fact that there was no corroborating evidence to the informant’s statements. Further, that they are going to recommend … that subsequently consideration might be given to presenting the evidence to a grand jury with the idea in mind of letting them not bill the case. Further, that in the event Congressman [John Parnell] Thomas on the Un-American Committee (HUAC) should ever raise a question, it would be possible to answer by saying that the Grand Jury had considered the evidence and had not deemed it sufficient to justify criminal action.
Mr. Quinn stated that if a Grand Jury was called he was going to recommend that it be called in New York instead of Washington, because he could control a New York Grand Jury and was fearful that a Washington Grand Jury might get out of hand and might want to call the Director and otherwise begin to feel its importance.
Mr. Donegan was not with Mr. Quinn in view of the fact that he is confined to his bed in New York with a bad cold.

Vol. 132, Serials 2896-2984

PDF p. 121
NY to Wash and Wash Field, Director and SAC, November 12, 1947
[seven lines redacted]
Donegan has now concluded interrogation of above named four persons,…, this office was today requested by Donegan to seek Bureau approval for immediate interview of Louis Budenz, inasmuch as Donegan desires Budenz’ appearance before Grand Jury to testify… Re his knowledge of an association with Golos, informant Gregory and others in instant case. Unless advised to the contrary, it is expected that Budenz will be interviewed Nov. thirteen next or as soon thereafter as practicable.

Vol. 143, Serials 3551- 3620 x 2

PDF, pp. 29 – 32:
D.M. Ladd to The Director, August 3, 1948
Subject: Gregory
Espionage – R
(Whittaker Chambers)
p. 3/PDF 31
…
Info Re Whittaker Chambers’ Testimony before Federal Grand
Jury in New York City Re his Activities.

In a memorandum dated March 9, 1948, in the Gregory case from Mr. Fletcher to you, information was set forth that ASAC Belmont called from the New York office on that date and advised that Mr. Donegan, who was handling Grand Jury proceedings, had advised him that they planned to call Whittaker Chambers of “Time” magazine as a witness that coming week. Mr. Donegan inquired of Mr. Belmont whether there would be any objection. Mr. Belmont informed Donegan that the New York office was going to contact Chambers on the following day in connection of another matter … and that they would determine Chambers’ reaction in behalf of Mr. Donegan with reference to Chambers’ appearance before the Grand Jury. It was recommended that the New York Office be permitted to sound out Chambers and that no objection be interposed to his appearance before the Grand Jury. Mr. Tamm OK’d this recommendation. (65-56402-3148) … that the New York Office be permitted to sound out Chambers [Re his appearance before the Grand Jury.]

The New York Office advised by teletype dated March 11, 1948, that in view of the negative information supplied by Chambers regarding Adler, that Mr. Donegan was of the opinion that Chambers’ testimony before the Grand Jury would not be helpful and had decided against any attempt to have Chambers appear. (65-56402-3140) …

["In the spring of 1948, Thomas Donegan, a special assistant to the Attorney General, spread before a federal grand jury in New York an FBI report on Alger Hiss. Hiss was subpoenaed and questioned. He denied knowing Chambers. Before the grand jury could reach any conclusions, the House Un-American Activities Committee caught the scent and acted. The committee subpoenaed Elizabeth Bentley, graduate of Vassar and, like Chambers, an ex-Communist courier. She named Government officials who, she said, had passed secret documents to her. Then the committee subpoenaed Chambers...." - The Case of Alger Hiss, Time, Monday, February 13, 1950.]

Vol. 147, Serials 3691-2730

PDF pp. 66-72:
D.M. Ladd to The Director, February15, 1949
…
p. 6/PDF 71
The following data appears in Bureau files concerning the matter of a presentment by the Department and the Grand Jury in the Gregory Case:
… On April 16, 1948, Mr. Quinn advised Mr. Ladd that the New York Grand Jury had adjourned until May 4, 1948; that the question as to a presentment was left up in the air inasmuch as the Attorney General at that time was opposed to returning any presentment. …
(65-56402-3209)
On June 8, 1948 Mr. Donegan informed Mr. Ladd that he had informed Mr. Quinn that he felt there was a need for a presentment in the Gregory Case and that Mr. Quinn seemed to agree; that it was tentatively agreed that a presentment would be made to the Grand Jury in the Gregory Case and that Donegan would then withdraw from the picture and that USA McGohey would take over in order to present the CP brief to the Grand Jury. (Memo from Mr. Ladd to Mr. Tamm dated 6/9/48. (65-56402))

On June 22, 1948 … Mr. Donegan had advised Belmont that he had appeared before the Grand Jury on June 22, 1948 and had talked to the foreman of the Grand Jury about the possibility of a presentment. The foreman was of an opinion that such a presentment should be made. A copy of a proposed presentment was furnished by Mr. Donegan to Mr. Quinn… Quinn was bringing it to Washington for the approval of the Attorney General.
(65-56402-3278)…
On June 29, 1948, Mr Donegan informed ASAC Belmont that he had been advised by Mr. Quinn that the Attorney General did not want any presentment returned in connection with the Gregory Case. He stated that apparently no

p.7/PDF 72

action would be taken with reference to the presentment which Mr. Donegan had suggested be returned by the Grand Jury. (65-56402-3271)

Vol. 139, Series Series 3351-3361

PDF p. 130:
Washington from New York, Aug 3, 1948, Teletype
Whittaker Chambers did not testify before GJ NYC and no indication [was] received from Messrs. Quinn and Donegan that he prepared any statement whatsoever for GJ.

Volume 138, Serials 3271-3350

PDF p. 212:
J.V. Fletcher to D.M. Ladd, August 6, 1948
This afternoon…, Mr. T.J. Donegan visited the Bureau and advised that the Department [of Justice] was interested in the details of information which Whittaker Chambers had furnished to the Bureau concerning Alger Hiss. …
… Whittaker Chambers was first interviewed by Agents of the Bureau … on March 13, 1942. … Chambers was again interviewed on May 10, 1945, and again on March 28, 1946, on the latter occasion, specifically regarding Alger Hiss.
… Donegan pointed out that nowhere did Chambers specifically state that he had attended any specific Party meeting with Hiss nor did he have any documentary evidence of Hiss’ Party membership. …
…
OBSERVATION:

From the gist of Donegan’s inquiries and comments, it appeared that the Department might be attempting to establish that Chambers and not Hiss was the one who committed perjury before the Committee.

Vol. 139, Series 3351-3361

PDF p. 76:
D.M. Ladd to Mr. Fletcher, Aug. 9, 1948
Subject: WHITTAKER CHAMBERS
On the evening of Aug 6, Peyton Ford called and stated he would like to have Tom Donegan check the Bureau file for any information on Whittaker Chambers. Mr. Donegan called and checked the files in connection with this matter with Mr. Whitson. He subsequently advised me that he had informed Mr. Ford that the Bureau had never conducted any actual investigation of Whittaker Chambers and had no derogatory information. …
… On Aug. 12, 1948, Mr. Donegan advised that USA McGohey of New York had called and advised that some of the Grand Jurors wanted to hold a special session during the first part of September, 1948, since they were concerned with the new Congressional Hearings (wherein Bentley and Chambers testified) and that the Attorney General was then of the opinion that the Grand Jury should be called back the first part of September …
(65-56402-3459)
… On September 20, 1948 Mr. Donegan advised Mr. Ladd that … he advised the Attorney General that a presentment could be returned…. . (65-56402-3597)

On September 22, 1948 Mr. Donegan advised Mr. Ladd …
… The Grand Jury adjourned on that date and was scheduled to reconvene on October 6, 1948.
(65-56402-3611)

On Oct. 13, 1948 Mr. Donegan advised Mr. Ladd … that … the Grand Jury had indicated that they did not want to return a presentment in the Gregory Case; that they felt it would be undesirable in view of the Congressional hearings and in view of the fact that the case had become a political issue. The Grand Jury adopted a position that they had nothing to apologize for in their handling of the case and that a presentment would merely be an apology. … The Grand Jury felt they should not be discharged; … that they should just go out of existence when their term expired in December, 1948. (65-56402-3654)

Vol. 143, Serials 3551- 3620 x 2

PDF p. 180:
WASH FROM NEW YORK September 24 1948, Teletype
…
[after a redacted graph]
Mr. Donegan further advised that Elizabeth Bentley will appear before the Grand Jury again on Oct. 6th and they will then consider the question of subpoenaing Whittaker Chambers. …

Vol. 145, Series 3647-3665

PDF p. 13:
D.M. Ladd to S.A. Tolson, October 15, 1948
Former Special Agent T.J. Donegan dropped in to see me on October 13, 1948. … He advised Mr. Campbell of the Criminal Division [of the Department of Justice] that the Grand Jury have indicated that they do not want to return a presentment in this case; … they feel it would be undesirable in view of Congressional hearings and in view of the fact that this case has become a political issue. … the Grand Jury feel that they should not be discharged; … but rather that they should just go out of existence when their term expires in December.

Vol. 147, Serials 3691-2730

PDF p. 17
Bureau from New York to The Director, urgent, October 15, 1948
Mr. T.J. Donegan advised today that Whittaker Chambers testified somewhat at length before the Grand Jury on October 14th, 48, and among other things states to the Grand Jury that
[the rest of the page redacted]
PDF 18/deleted
p. 3/PDF 20
[4,5 lines redacted]

Bureau’s attention is called to a letter dated June 26, 45, entitled Whittaker Chambers, Internal Security R, which sets forth the result of an interview had by agents… with Whittaker Chambers on May 10th, forty five. On page 4, 5, and 6 info is set forth concerning Dr. Philip Rosenbliett as related by Whittaker Chambers. The info in this matter is in the main similar to the info he supplied before the GJ. There is however no mention of [1.5 lines redacted]. It should be noted that Chambers testimony of the 14th in regard to the above mentioned situations [2.5 lines redacted]
Mr. Donegan pointed out that there is no question but that Chambers has a “loose memory” and though cooperative, is a rather difficult
p. 4/PDF 21
witness because of his definite recollection of some somewhat unimportant things and a lack of memory concerning situations that a man of his education and background should readily recollect…. Chambers again appeared before the GJ this morning and [7 lines redacted]
The GJ will meet again on October 19th, at which time [4 lines redacted]
The Bureau’s attention is called to the case entitled Ernst Lens, was, et al, … which quite conclusively proves that Rosenbleitt has not returned to the US since the time he went to Russia in about 1935.
Scheidt.

Vol. 146, Serials 3666-3690

PDF, p. 6:
D.M. Ladd to Director, October 25, 1948
Mr. T.J. Donegan advised me today following his conference with the Attorney General that it had been decided in view of the hesitancy on the part of the Grand Jury to return a presentation that no action would be taken by the Grand Jury at this time but that they will adjourn and at some time subsequent to the election they will be called back into session to decide whether they at that time desire to issue a presentment. If not, they will not be discharged but they will be permitted to let their term expire about the middle of December.

Vol. 148, Serials 3731-3805

PDF p. 23:
D.M. Ladd to The Director, April 13, 1949
… Mr. Donegan… had discussed with the Foreman of the Grand Jury the request by the Grand Jury for your appearance before them.
Mr. Donegan informed Mr. Belmont that the matter was taken care of and that the Grand Jury was under control, that your appearance would not be necessary.

PDF p. 90
Edward Schneidt, New York to The Director, August 31, 1949
…
The Special Grand Jury … in the Southern District of New York has been recessed for some time; … nor is it contemplated at this time that witnesses will be scheduled, except possibly in connection with the ALGER HISS retrial. SAAG T.J. Donegan, who has handled the Grand Jury, is actively engaged in the HISS matter. Close liaison is being maintained by this office with Mr. Donegan, …if the Grand Jury reconvenes and hears additional testimony, … the Bureau immediately advised. …

Vol. 150, Serials 3835-3896

PDF p. 49:
D.M. Ladd to Mr. Belmont, October 16, 1950
Mr. T.J. Donegan called from New York today and advised that the foreman of the former Grand Jury, Mr. Brunini, had contacted him and stated that he has been helping Elizabeth Bentley on her book; that he has, however, taken no money. He stated that Bentley did not want Brunini to tell Mr. Donegan about this help, and she claimed to have told the New York Office about it.
… According to Mr. Donegan, Brunini asked him for advice as to whether he should accept any fee for work on this matter. Mr. Donegan stated that he told Brunini that under no circumstances should he do this …

From Testimony of 26 January 1949:

5749
…
A … probably in the spring of 1938, I took these documents and the film and the handwriting of Alger Hiss and White and put them in an envelope and gave them to my nephew, Nathan Levine, who was in Brooklyn. I asked him to hide them somewhere – I didn’t know where – and if anything should happen to me, to make them public in some way, and I wasn’t very clear about that either.

Q. They wouldn’t have been any help to anybody unless there had been some explanation from you, would they?

A. No. But, of course, they would have been quite curious documents and some story might develop.

Q. Well, there wouldn’t be any disclosures, would there, without your assistance?

A. Possibly not.

Q. Well, I just would like to know what passed through your mind, what possible plans you may have made. You began saving these documents, you say, over a period of several months.

A. That’s right.

Q. Are you just completely vague now as to why you did it?

A. No, I’m not vague. I think that “plans” is too definite a word. I was in a state of considerable turmoil, as you might imagine. This was the kind of evidence whose purpose was not too clear to me; nevertheless, I saved it.

Q. It would have been evidence, would it not, against the Hisses particularly?

A. It would.

Q. And White? Principally, against White and the Hisses?

5750

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you have in mind at that time, well, using them as possible future evidence against Hiss?

A. I had no definite plan, as I said, and certainly my animus was not specifically against Hiss. These papers happened to be available. If there had been any from Wadleigh or Pigman, I probably would have saved those too.

Q. And over the whole period of several months there were none available?

A. No, sir. This was the only operation at this time.

Q. But it did pass through your mind. You say – I may have misunderstood you – it did pass through your mind that in some future difficulty that you might have with the Hisses these papers would be of value to you.

A. No, … I didn’t think of future differences with the Hisses. I was thinking of evidence about the operation, and this happened to be available.

Q. They were just protection to yourself.

A. Some kind of possible protection.

Q. I don’t quite see what protection they would be. Will you explain that to us?

A. Possibly, if I ever were called upon to testify about this story or had to make it clear, they would have been some kind of evidence if this went on.

5751

A JUROR: … was that possibly you yourself, personally, might make such a disclosure,
and you were keeping the documents for that purpose?

THE WITNESS: I think it has never been out of my mind that at some time the full story
would have to be told.

From Testimony of December 8, 1948:

3604
BY MR. WHEARTY:
…
Q Were all of the documents that you got in this envelope from Mr. Levine, on the 14th of November, procured by you solely from Alger Hiss?

A All of the typed documents were from the Hisses; that is, from Priscilla and Alger Hiss.

Q That is Mr. and Mrs. Hiss?

A That’s right. May I just say, Alger Hiss.

Q Did Mrs. Hiss at any time get any material for you?

A No, but Mrs. Hiss typed most of the documents, as I recall.

Q Did she at any time hand you any of the documents or copies that she had typed for you?

A I can’t say categorically yes, but my impression is that she did. However, my memory is not vivid enough on that point.

BY MR. DONEGAN:

Q Did she ever tell you that she had typed them?

3605

A Again my impression is that she did, but I can’t be too sure.

BY MR. WHEARTY:

Q Did you ever see the typewriter in their home?

A I had no recollection of it, but I have now heard what the make of the machine was.

…

Q But you didn’t get any of those documents from any of the others you mentioned, such as Wadleigh or Pigman -

A No, the typed documents definitely come from Alger Hiss; and the four handwritten chits, the little slips, are from Alger Hiss.
…

From Testimony of December 9, 1948:

…
3825

BY MR. WHEARTY:

Q Mr. Chambers, one thing that has puzzled this Grand Jury and us, too, very greatly, has been the real reason why you held out these documents and failed to disclose their existence prior to the times you did; that is, on November 17 as to the typewritten matter and the Hiss notes, and December 2 or 3 when you gave the films to the Committee under subpoena. Now, won’t you develop that for us and clear it up? We want the real reason; because, I’ll say to you frankly that it’s a little difficult to understand the theoretical motives for withholding them, and that’s what your explanation has been up to now. Now, will you develop that for us, please?

A I will do my best. The first thing that an ex-Communist has to face is the question of whether he will inform against his former comrades and to what degree. I faced the problem at once, of course, and put it off until such time as the approach of the World War particularly the Moscow-Berlin pact, seemed to make it impossible for me to put it off any longer. As you know, I had been to Washington and talked with Mr. Berle. I mentioned to him the existence of conspiratorial Communists in the government, the names of Colonel Bykov, Rosenbleit, another Soviet agent, …

3826

… and mentioned other names. I came back to New York supposing that an investigation would begin at once and that …
… I would be called to Washington very quickly and that the whole story would then be developed.

Q Now, in your conversation with Mr. Berle, as I understand it, you made no reference to having possession of any documents.

A That is quite true.

Now, why did you hold them out at that time?

A If we had gone further than a conversation, those documents would undoubtedly have been disclosed. I came back convinced that the new foothold which I had gained in life I must abandon at once and, as I say, that the investigation would be pushed.

BY THE JURY:
…

Q … When was this conversation with Mr. Berle?

3827

A That was, I believe, about five days after the Moscow-Berlin pact was signed.

Q That was when?

A That would have been in September, 1939, September or August.

BY MR. WHEARTY:

Q It was in August, wasn’t it, the 21st of August?

A Yes. ¹ Then I heard nothing more for something like two years. In that time the documents had dimmed in my mind, for one thing, and my old feeling that I did not want to involve human beings in such a tragic difficulty any more than necessary became paramount again.
…

3829
…

Q … Now, we got up to 1941. Did anything further develop on your part, toward disclosure, prior to the time that you were first interviewed by the FBI?

A No.

Q And you were first interviewed by the FBI in — …

A … probably ‘41, perhaps ‘42.

Q ‘41 or ‘42?

A Yes.

Q Now, at that time you didn’t give the slightest inkling of the existence of these papers and films?

A That is true.
…
… I had disclosed the identity of a great many people in the apparatus, as you know, and it seemed to me that disclosure of the fact that they were Communists and operating in the government was itself sufficiently serious that some action might be taken.
…

3831
…
BY MR. WHEARTY:
…
Q Well, now, there came a time somewhere where you felt that you ought to disclose those documents, and that was in November of this year?

A That’s right.

Q Now, how do you reconcile the disclosure of the documents with your scruples against hurting people?

A I did not disclose those documents lightly. In the first place, and what I expect no one in this room believes unless I mentioned it, I had forgotten the existence of those documents. When I went to Mr. Levine to get my things I had remembered handwriting speciments [sic], and I was staggered when I discovered what was in the envelope. There then rose the question of what to do. And when I finally mentioned the matter to Richard Cleveland, my attorney, he said he thought that I had no choice but to disclose the documents. … and I concluded that indeed I had no choice but the simple fact

3832

that the libel suit of Alger Hiss against Whittaker Chambers has always seemed to be to me a libel suit of the Communist Party against Whittaker Chambers, a suit very important to the country and one which must not be lost, for that reason.
…

Q You didn’t remember specific documents?

A I did not remember specific documents.
…

BY MR. WHEARTY:

Q Well, did you have any particular purpose in preserving only those documents which you say you got from Hiss?

A No, I don’t think so. Those were the documents – or, those were the available documents.

Q Well, it would seem curious that you didn’t keep a sample of what Wadleigh gave you, for example.

A Wadleigh was not in the habit of typing his – copying his documents on the typewriter.

Q There is a little inconsistency there.

A What is the inconsistency. [sic - no question mark]

Q Here is an envelope and papers that are so unimportant in your mind that you completely forgot about their existence.

A I would put it exactly the other way: that it was so important that I forgot its existence.

MR. DONEGAN: I didn’t hear that. Well, I might be a little dense on that.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. A man who wishes to cut out of his mind a peculiarly ugly
experience -

Q Would normally destroy them, I would think.

A I don’t think, in the circumstances, they would ordinarily destroy them, But assuming he did not, he is capable of forgetting it. However, as I said -

BY THE JURY:

Q May I ask, by the same token, could there possibly

3841

be some additional documents, film, et cetera, that you have completely forgotten at that stage of the game?

Mr. WHEARTY: That are so important that you have forgotten them.

A No, I don’t believe so.

Q Well, you have forgotten these, so far. Could it be possible that you could have forgotten some more?

A This was the only material that I secreted.

Q Well, before this Grand Jury you indicated that you didn’t have any material. Now, I’ll give you the opportunity to think about it now and see if there is not some more that you have forgotten.

A I assure you that there is no more.

BY THE JURY:

Q Well, you assured us of that once before. Was Mr. Alger Hiss’ signature on those documents?

A Mr. Hiss’ is not on those documents.

Q It is?

A It is not.

Q When did you first get that material?

A The typed material?

Q When did it first come in your possession?

A It would be close to the dates, the earliest dates on the documents, and then from there down.

Q What year?

A ‘37.
…

3843
…
Q You haven’t forgotten – the time when you spoke to Mr. Berle you were aware of the material?

A That’s true.

BY MR. DONEGAN:

Q When did you again think of the material?

A I didn’t think of it at all. I found it in that envelope, the handwritten specimens.

Q You didn’t think of it before you came in contact with that envelope?

A No, I did not.
…

3844

Q … just briefly how you happened to come in contact with that envelope that caused you to remember this material.

A I went there, to Mr. Levine’s in Brooklyn, to get some specimens of Alger Hiss’ handwriting which I recalled having put in the envelop that I gave to Mr. Levine. And I wasn’t even sure that after that lapse of years that Mr. Levine was still in possession of them. I was more staggered than I can convey to you when I found the contents.
…

3845
…
Q And at that time that you appeared before this Grand Jury, which I believe was on October 14, 1948, you came to the decision that you would perjure yourself rather than reveal information and injure those people; is that correct?

A I wouldn’t say that I decided to perjure myself. I was still trying to shield them. If the result is technically perjury, I can only say that my mind is at peace.

BY THE JURY:

Q As a matter of fact, on October 14, if I followed your testimony, you didn’t even remembered of the existence of these documents.

A That is true.

Q Is that what you want us to believe?

A That is true. But I was aware of the existence of the group and its activities.
…

II. Whittaker Chambers about the Russian end of his enterprise

December 7, 1948:
[Examined by U.S. Attorney Raymond Whearty]

3589
…
BY Mr. WHEARTY:
…

A … I have of course turned over to Col. Bykov material which was given to me for that purpose, …
…

p. 3573

[By Mr. DONEGAN]
…
Q Did you ever deliver any material to anybody else with the exception of Colonel Bykov?

A No, I think not.

MR. WHEARTY: Did you keep any record of the times you made these deliveries to Bykov?

THE WITNESS: No records were kept.

Q Can you give this grand jury an approximation, to the best of your recollection, of how many times you delivered material?

A I delivered material to Bykov through 1937 and probably through the first months of 1938, certainly through the first months of 1938.

Q How frequently would you deliver them?

A About once a week.
…

3575
…
Q Prior to 1937 when you say you turned over material to Col. Bykov, if my recollection is correct you say you turned over material to nobody else but Col. Bykov?

A I think that’s quite true.

Q You were engaged in Communist Party activities or what you term apparatus, is that correct?
…
A Yes.

Q In connection with your activities with the apparatus were there any efforts made to obtain – this is prior to Col. Bykov – to obtain information from any Government sources?

A No, I do not believe – in fact, I am sure that no one turned over information or material.
…
By Mr. WHEARTY:

Q No one or that you did not?

A No one.

3576
…
Q What would be your practice, would you go to somebody who was a contact of yours and say, “I have to get some more information for Bykov by say – we’ll say April 1st?

A No.
…
A I would say that in general the thing was more or less automatic at about a week

3577

or ten day intervals I met Bykov. The material which had been gathered up until that time with the meeting in mind was then ready to take to him.

Q So obtaining the information was independent of your meetings with Bykov?

A It would have been, yes.

Q You would have gotten the information in any event?

A We would have, but nevertheless we of course planned the procuring of information so I’d have it to take something to him.

By Mr. DONEGAN:
…
Q. Now, Mr. Chambers, in connection with your activities with Bykov, did you consider at that time that you were engaged in actual espionage activities?
A. Yes.

Q. Were you engaged in espionage activities at any other time except 1937 and 1938 with Col. Bykov?

A. No.

Q Will you identify the individuals for the grand jury who furnished you with this material or information that you turned over to Col. Bykov?

A The individuals who gave me information to turn over to Col. Bykov were Ward Pigman of the Bureau of Standards, Alger Hiss of the State Department, Julian Wadleigh of the State Department, and Harry Dexter White

3578

of the Treasury Department. I believe that’s the list of those who actually turned over information.
…

3579
…
A … These individuals who did not furnish information were separated from all Communist activities and connections, at least in theory, and were connected directly with me with the idea that eventually they would be able to furnish information, or might be able to.

Q Did you have any conversations with these people?

A Yes, I saw them, I think not as regularly as those who were giving information, but I saw most of them quite frequently.

Q Now in order to keep our continuity, will you name each one of these individuals, and will you say from your recollection what conversation you had with them?

A Yes. These individuals were George Pigman, I am not quite sure of that first name but I believe it was George, the brother of Ward Pigman also of the Bureau of Standards. Now I don’t recollect the exact nature of any conversations I had with George Pigman whom I saw much less frequently than I did anyone else.

Q Did you ask George Pigman to furnish you with information?

A I certainly discussed the problem [of furnishing info] with him at least once.

Q. Did you tell George Pigman that you wanted that information to give to a Russian representative?

A. I don’t know that I said so in so many words.

3580

Q You see, the problem that we have before the grand jury, and we want to get down as basic as we can, can you give the grand jury the substance of what you said to him?

A I would — I suppose that I said to him, and that his brother had already talked to him … that we were interested in, procuring information from the Bureau of Standards, and that it was going to Communist sources if not to Soviet sources.

Q On how many occasions did you have such conversations with George Pigman?

A I would think that I had such a conversation no more than once. …

Q Will you fix the approximate date that you had that conversation with George Pigman?

A That would be very difficult.

Q Would it be in 1937?

A It would certainly be all 1937.

Testimony of December 8, 1948:
(Presented by Messrs. Whearty, Strine and Donegan)
…
3583
…
A … I have overlooked one other member of the group which furnished material. … That is a man named Reno. …he was a mathematician working in the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland.

Q And about how frequently did you receive documents from him?

A He gave a small amount of documents once or twice. … they had to do with the bombsight on which he was working. They were technical matters, and I don’t know anything about it.
…
3584
…
Q You say to the best of your memory that only happened once or twice? … Can you specify the time?

A I think it must have been towards the end of 1937.

Q Do you associate these deliveries of material with the type of weather, or something like that?
…
A No, I don’t think so.
…
3592
…
Q We take it as definite, then that nobody except yourself, in this particular group, received any of the material, documentary or otherwise, which was taken from government files?
… And photographed or copied?

A I think that is true.
…
3593

Q When did the purpose [of apparatus] change [from placing people in government to espionage]?

A The purpose changed either right at the end of 1936 or early in 1937.

Q What required that change?

A The presence of Colonel Bikov. [here&after, sic in the original]
…
Q Was any material that you obtained ever handed to anybody except to Bikov, by you?

A No, I believe not.

Q Now, Mr. Chambers, do you know, and can you tell us, what Bikov’s relationship was to the Russian Government, outside of the fact that he was supposed to be connected with a section of their Intelligence service?

A No, that is all I know; and that information I had from

3594

Walter Krivitsky.

Q Do you know, except from what was told to you, whether or not Bikov was in fact a Colonel?

A No, I base that knowledge wholly and solely upon what Walter Krivitsky told me.

Q You at no time saw any credentials or any evidence that he was connected with the Russian government?

A None whatsoever.

BY MR. DONEGAN:

Q What did Colonel Bikov say to you, with reference to his position or what work he was doing?

A I don’t know that he ever said anything specific about it. It was implicit in the relationship.

Q Well, at any time would it appear that it would be natural for you to have some sort of a discussion, although you might not go into it in detail?

A We discussed the kind of material that Bikov wanted, but the purpose of the material I don’t think we discussed at all.

Q Did he ever tell you what he was doing with the material?

A No, he did not.
…

3595
…

3596
[BY MR. DONEGAN]
…
Q Did you ever use the title “Colonel” in speaking to him?

A I knew him under the pseudonym of “Peter.” I never knew he had the title “Colonel” at that time, and he never had a military appearance.

3597

Q Did Bikov or Peter comment to you as to the value, or commend you on material that was being delivered by you?

A I never remember any commendations.

Q Did he make any comments, outside of commendations?

A He frequently criticized the poor quality, from his standpoint, of the information obtained.

…

3847
…
A JUROR: Mr. Chambers, I would like to know why, in your mind, you say you didn’t remember about this envelope but you – is it that you didn’t remember that there were documents in it?
THE WITNESS: That’s right. I remembered the specimens.

A JUROR: You remembered all those years that you had the specimens of handwriting in that envelope?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I remembered that I had secreted the specimens of handwriting.

BY MR. DONEGAN:
Q. What did you remember, Mr. Chambers, about

3848

the nature of the specimens of the handwriting you had secreted?

A. Practically nothing.

Q. Did you remember the source of them?

A. Yes, I knew I had specimens of Mr. Hiss’ handwriting, and I thought I had Harry Dexter White’s.

Q Did you remember where you got them from?

A I got them from Mr. Hiss.

Q And did you remember the circumstances under which you had gotten them?

A I think perhaps I didn’t make myself clear.

Q I don’t want to go into how you got them, but at the time you remembered you had specimens, did you remember how you got them?

A You mean the occasion on which he gave them to me?

Q. Yes.

A. I seem to remember that they were given to me in the 30th Street house.

Q. And did you remember for what purpose they were given to you?

A. They were given to me for Colonel Bikov. [sic]

Q. And you remembered this at the time you

3849

remembered that you had specimens?

A That is true.

Q And if you remembered Colonel Bikov you remembered that he was the Russian?

A Certainly.

Q So, therefore, would it be unreasonable for us to say that you didn’t remember the nature of these documents, but that you remembered these handwriting specimens that you had in connection with Colonel Bikov?

A. No, I think it would be accurate, to say that I didn’t remember the exact contents of the documents, but I knew what their purpose had been.

Q So that, in order that we may clarify that point, you did not remember the exact contents of the documents that were over in Rochester Avenue?

A That’s right.

Q But you remembered that you had had specimens of the handwriting and you remembered their purpose?

A Surely.

Q. So that for all intents and purposes you remembered that you had something that had to do with espionage?

A. That’s right.

From the Testimony of January 18, 1949:

5484
BY Mr. DONEGAN:
…
Q Do you know whether or not the micro-film that you turned over to Colonel Bykov was transmitted to Russia in the same way?

A It would have been too voluminous, I should think, for such a transmission.

Q Do you know what use was made of it?

A No, I don’t, but of course I could surmise.

5485

Q What would be your surmise?

A My surmise would be that it was transmitted by one agency or another to Russia.
…

Q Did you ever have any conversation with Colonel Bykov, or someone else, from which you could very definitely say as to whether that material was going over-seas?

A No, I cannot. That is a kind of conversation I would not be likely to have.

Q Can you state, from what you know or were able to observe, that Colonel Bykov was a representative of the Russian Government?

A Yes, sir, I can. I suppose the most definite thing I can say is what Walter Krivitsky told me. Shall I go into that?

Mr. DONEGAN: No, I don’t think right now. That will be gone into at the regular order.

From the Testimony of January 26, 1949:

5755
…
THE FOREMAN: You mentioned Walter Krivitsky – I think you might clarify his status, and so on.

THE WITNESS: Well, Walter Krivitsky was the former head of Soviet intelligence in Western Europe. He was a General in the Red Army.
…

5756
…
THE FOREMAN: You mentioned him as identifying to you the man whom you had theretofore known as Peter?

THE WITNESS: Yes – that was Bykov.

THE FOREMAN: How did that identification come about?

THE WITNESS: In the course of conversation, when he discussed people he knew and I discussed

5757

people I knew, and he identified Bykov …

A JUROR: Just about what time was it that you met Levine and Krivitsky in Washington?

THE WITNESS: … I should think it was probably toward the end of the year 1938.

A JUROR: Was it before or after you had gone to TIME MAGAZINE?

THE WITNESS: It was before.
….

5765
…
THE FOREMAN: Might I interrupt your questions? What I am trying to establish here, … we are trying to develop the chronological sequence. …

3546
…
BY MR. WHEARTY:
Q Mr. Hiss, were you personally present at the deposition in Baltimore on November 17th, when Mr. Chambers turned over the documents to the attorney?

A No, I was not.

Q You saw those first the following day in New York?

A That’s right. I think it was the very next day I saw Photostats of them.
…

Q Have you ever seen the originals?

A No, sir.
…
Q In my question to you, I wanted to limit it to the typed memos, only as to the typed memos.

A That’s right.

3547
…

A … Several of the typed memos there appeared to me to be summaries, rather than exact copies of State Department materials.

Q Mr. Hiss, did you recognize any of those memos as material you had seen in the State Department when you were there?

A I didn’t have any recollection of either the papers or the topics to which they referred.

Q With respect to the penciled or handwritten slips, of which you saw a photostatic copy, have you ever seen the originals of those?

A I have no independent recollection of those.

Q Have you seen anything but the Photostats?

A Nothing but the Photostats.

Q From your examination of the Photostats, are you able to say whether or not all those copies were in your handwriting?

A Three of the four appear to be; the fourth one did not seem to me to be.

Q If we show the originals of those here in the Grand Jury, would you take a look at them and tell us here what your reaction is today. I show you one which bears the identification number 4, and the signature of T.E. McDonald, Notary. Would you tell us whether that appears to be in your handwriting?

A Yes, that does look like my handwriting.

Q I show you one similarly identified, as number

8548

Q Is that in your handwriting?

A That certainly looks like my handwriting; yes, sir.

Q … I show you now a little slip, which bears the same name, and number 1. Does that appear to be in your handwriting?

A That does not look like my handwriting to me.

Q Does it seem to be too big or too little?

A Well, it just does not look like my idea of my handwriting.

Q I show you a similar paper, marked number 3, with the name McDonald also appearing. What is your best recollection or best statement on that?

A That looks, I would say, exactly like my handwriting.

Q That last slip of paper I showed you, that appears to be two different types of pencil used – one of blue and one of black. Do you have any memory of having written these slips?

A Not these particular slips, no, sir; but slips like them, yes.

Q Now, Mr. Hiss, would you tell us just under what circumstances you would prepare slips of this nature, which obviously appear to be memos you would make of longer and more formal memos that flowed over your desk at the State Department. What was your usual procedure – why would you make those notes – what did you do with them; and follow through with that, please, with respect to the

3549

notes.

A One of my duties, in the period in which the typewritten documents fall – and I am not sure I can identify the date of the handwritten ones; I notice they are dated by month and not by year – but assuming I wrote them, which seems to me, except for one of them, to be very, very likely, and assuming that I wrote them during the same three-month period of January to March, 1938 – during the period I was in Mr. Sayre’s office and later, one of my duties was to go over a great variety of material that came into the office where I was employed, and sort out what seemed to be of sufficient interest for my superior, and what he did not need to see.
In the case of Mr. Sayre, and I think in the case of Mr. Hornbeck, too, later on, both of them being very busy men, and the amount of material that came through being quite literally voluminous, they continually asked me to reduce as far as possible the scope and size of the material I would send through for them to see.
Quite frequently, I would report orally on papers of general information, that it didn’t seem to me that they needed to see, but that they might need to know for background the general content of; and in making such an oral presentation I might frequently have notes to help my memory in giving details.
So that I did from time to time make these little rough notes, to help me in describing orally papers that

3550

did not seem to me to be of sufficient interest to my chiefs to send them forward.
What I would normally do, as I recall it, was to have the pieces of paper with me when I went in to see Mr. Sayre, and I would see him on those matters whenever he would see me – it was not at a fixed hour.
I would tell him what the contents and special interest or significance were, and would probably have the actual papers with me, and would say, “If you want to see them, here they are, but I don’t think you need to see them.”
I would normally have thought that subsequent to that I would have taken the slips myself and destroyed them, torn them up and put them in the waste paper basket myself.

Q Was that your usual practice?

A Yes. I don’t have any distinct recollection of what I did in 1938. I think that about covers it.
I could have left them on papers, expecting that the office staff would themselves dispose of them, because the papers would go forward with the files, and I would expect them to take off my notes of no special significance,

Q Might you have taken the notes off and kept them in your desk for reference purposes?
A I don’t think I would be likely to have kept them after I had

3551

reported on them, but I might very well have kept them in my desk before I had an opportunity to report to Mr. Sayre on them. I might have prepared the papers in the afternoon and might not have a chance to see Mr. Sayre until the next morning. I might then very likely have kept them in my desk.

Q You never missed any from your desk, did you?

A No, I never did.
…

(Presented by Thomas J. Donegan, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and Raymond Whearty, Assistant U.S. Attorney)

4776

BY MR. DONEGAN:
…
Q Now, Mr. Sayre, you are appearing before this Grand Jury in response to a subpoena which has been served upon you; is that correct?

A. It is correct. I landed from a steamer coming back from Europe only on Sunday [December 20]; and I felt that, if it were agreeable to the Grand Jury, I ought to go to Washington first to get copies of some of the papers which are pertinent to this case and have a chance to look at them before I gave testimony.
…

4786
…
Q Now, Mr. Sayre, you have talked with the FBI and the FBI made available to you copies of documents which have been referred to as the “Chambers documents.” In other words, there are two groups; documents that were turned over by Mr. Chambers to his attorneys on November 17, 1948, at Baltimore, at a pre-trial deposition; and another group of documents which are referred to as the “pumpkin documents,” more properly photographs. Now, you had occasion to examine those with the FBI?

A Yes.

Q Now, will you, if you can, in this manner, advise the Grand Jury as to the results of your examination and what you told the FBI?
…
4788
…
BY MR. DONEGAN:

Q Have you had any conversations with Mr. Marbury [the attorney for Alger Hiss]?
…
A I arrived home in Washington in the afternoon, I think about past three in the afternoon on Sunday. I had a telephone call from Mr. Marbury, who lives, as you know, in Baltimore, asking if he could see me before – he had to be in Boston the following day, and so he asked if he could come down to Washington and see me, and then catch the Federal Express up from Washington, and I said yes, I would be glad to see him, and he came to my house.
Of course, I was eager to hear about this questioning of Mr. Chambers in Baltimore, and I asked him to tell me about the questioning down there, and Mr. Marbury proceeded to do so.
I suppose I talked with him perhaps an hour and a half, … I have also talked with people in the State Department, particularly, with Mr. Gross, the Legal Adviser there, and some of his assistants, …
4789
…
… I left America August 8th last … so that all I knew about it was what I happened to see in such papers as I could get hold of in Paris.

4790
…
BY MR. WHEARTY:

Q Did you have any conversation concerning the merits of the matter?

A I asked Mr. Marbury a question which is terribly confidential, but I would be glad to tell you exactly.
…
BY MR. DONEGAN:
Q As far as lawyer’s privilege is concerned, you were not associated in any way with Mr. Marbury in handling the case for Mr. Hiss, so I don’t have that you have to be concerned about the lawyer’s questions to you.

A And this is entirely in secret, anyhow, isn’t it?

Q Yes, sir, it is entirely confidential.

A You may be asking me later as to my size-up of Alger Hiss’ character. Personally, up until the time I left this country on August 8th, I had every confidence in Mr. Hiss, and never doubted his integrity of character. Then I read all of these things in the papers while I was in Paris.

4791

When I came back, and Mr. Marbury comes to see me, one of the questions which I wanted to put to him was: “Do you still believe in Alger Hiss; have you entire confidence in him?” and his answer was, “Yes.” Now, I was very eager to get that reaction of his.
…
BY MR. WHEARTY:

Q Did you discuss the facts of the case, or merely opinions or impressions of it, Mr. Sayre?

A Do you mean Saturday night or Sunday night?

Q Were there any details of the facts of the case discussed at this Sunday night conversation? …
4792

… We can well conceive that you and many others could well believe it inconceivable that Hiss could have done any of these things, and we can well appreciate that any number of people can come and testify about his good character. The only trouble with character witnesses is that they are not in a position to know what went on. … they do not know what went on outside.

Now, what would help us is anything in the way of facts which came to your attention, which would help the jury. … How did the documents get out of the State Department, and did Hiss have access to them, and did Hiss take them?

A I would like very much to swing into that, if I may.
…
4793
…
BY MR. DONEGAN:

Q Now, Mr. Sayre, you have some documents there?

A I have.

Q What kind of documents are they?

A These are purported copies of the two groups of documents – the Baltimore documents and the “pumpkin” documents, if I may characterize them as such.

Q And for the purposes of the record, where did you obtain those copies?

A I obtained the copies from the Department of State. When I was talking with the Department of State officials on Monday morning, I asked if they couldn’t give me copies of those documents.

…

A Yes. Now, when I obtained copies, from the State Department, of these documents which had been released, I went through them and sorted them out, and I think there are certain very interesting facts developed.
In the first place, there is one group of documents, I believe, all of which were among the Baltimore

4795

papers, which consist of telegrams. Confidential telegrams which were sent either from or to the State Department. …
…

BY MR. WHEARTY:
…
Q You say they were confidential, Mr. Sayre. Do you mean they were so classified by the State Department in 1938?

A There were different types here….

…

A I see one here marked “Strictly Confidential.” I see another here not marked “Confidential.” There were some which were extremely confidential and others not.

4796

Q Were all of the telegrams such that they would have been transmitted in code?

A I believe so. I can’t answer that of positive knowledge, but I would be very much surprised if any of these had been transmitted not in code.

Q As I understand it, you have two or more sets of codes in the State Department, is that correct?

A More than two.

Q There are five, aren’t there?
… I am speaking as of 1938, yes.

A I can’t say how many there were. There was the Gray Code, which was the least confidential.

Q Did other nations had any knowledge of that code?

A It was believed by many of us that some of the other Governments did have knowledge of it, and we would not use that code for transmitting extremely confidential material.

Q You had no reason to believe that any of the other State Department codes were known to any other nations, did you?

A No. May I just add to that, that we have no reason to know or believe that the Gray Code was known, but it was used so often, so constantly for such routine things, that we thought it was quite possible

4797

that other Governments would know it.

Q In other words, no great damage would ensue if the Gray Code were known to other nations?

A Of course, we were not advertising our code. We don’t want it understood that we were using a code which was useless and which was well known. All I mean to say is that some of our codes were more guarded than others, and the Gray Code was the least confidential of the lot.

Q Can you say, from your examination of the telegrams, whether or not other codes than the Gray Code were used for their transmission?

A Yes. Some of them were.
…
4809
…
BY MR. DONEGAN:
…
Q I would like again to refer to the five small pieces of paper, on which there appear handwriting. With reference to the pieces of paper, which you have already examined, what explanation can you offer, as being the superior of Mr. Hiss, as to why he would write these notations?
In other words, for the purpose of the record, I will say that they are in the handwriting of Mr. Hiss. Now will you tell the Grand Jury what explanation there might be?

A I cannot give you an explanation of them. Now, it was our practice in the State Department often to make little penciled memoranda, giving the reaction of the individual who read a long cable or a document or a file, giving his reaction on what should be done, or whether the paper was correct, in the procedure which it suggested.
And those little penciled memoranda, which were similar in appearance to those, would often be attached to the file as it passed from division to division in the State Department.
These particular papers which you showed me do not bear that character. That is to say, these papers

4810

are not comments on a file or on a memorandum. These are rather, as I saw them, apparently digests of telegrams.
As you showed me those yesterday, I did not recognize or remember having seen any one of those particular memoranda. On the other hand, the number of telegrams pouring into my office was so great that I had to have somebody sieve those telegrams and give to me the important ones, and in certain cases, if they were long telegrams or memoranda, often tell me what they were and whether in their opinion I should read them or not.
It is possible that those particular memoranda which you referred to might have been digested by Mr. Hiss after reading the original, so that he could tell me in a few words what the memorandum contained. Not that he would show me or pass to me those specific memoranda, but possibly that he would digest it for his own purposes, so that in handing me a stack of telegrams he might just glance at his little digest and say, “Well, this telegram is about so-and-so; I don’t think you have to read that.” “This telegram is about so-and-so; perhaps you better get after that.” And so on and so forth.
Now, I have no recollection of those specific papers, but I merely tell you what our practice was for what it may be worth.

4811

Q I would like to refer to one, specifically, and I will show you the copy of this here. It refers to what I believe to be military information. Now, you were not interested in military information?
A I was not. That is, those memoranda which you showed me yesterday did not relate to trade matters.

Q Consequently, is there any explanation as to why Mr. Hiss – and I am speaking to you as his superior – is there any explanation in the conduct of your office as to why Mr. Hiss should write this memorandum – and I am referring to this one, with reference to the French airplane?

A Yes. Only such possible explanation as I have already given, that here was this stack of cables, and it is possible that he wrote this memorandum digesting a cable which had come in, which he would feel it unnecessary for me to read in detail, and he would tell me in a few words what it was about, refreshing his mind to do so with this memorandum. I don’t remember this specific memorandum, but I am giving this as a possible explanation.

Q He would know that you were not interested in military information -

A And therefore need not go through a long telegram.

Q But also, would it follow that, knowing that you were not interested in military information, it would

4812

not be necessary to make such a long digest – referring to the French airplane matter, and the military point of view in Indo-China?

A Of course, when you say I was not interested – I had to be interested in everything that pertained to developments going along, because when it came to the matters I was handling – economic and trade matters – you had to know about the military matters in order to make wise decisions; so that although it wasn’t in my immediate field, it was nevertheless information which I ought to know about, so that there is that possible explanation.

Q We realize that it is a possible explanation. In other words, what the Grand Jury is trying to determine, of course, is that you, as head of that particular part of the State Department, and since Mr. Hiss was directly under you — we are trying to get any explanation that you might have as to why they should be written, especially since you were not concerned with military information; and there is a notation in Mr. Hiss’ handwriting – and rather lengthy for a digest, it appear to me -

4813

in other words, it concerns a number of French airplanes, if you will read it through, and I would like to have your comments on it, if you would be interested in that particular type of information.
A It would not fall within the direct line of my activities. It would be background information. Now, as I say, I don’t remember this memorandum at all, and when you ask my comment as to what possible explanation there can be for this, I can only offer the grand jury such a possible explanation as I have given. I have no distinct recollection of any detailed – of this specific memorandum at all. So far as I know, I never saw it.

JUROR: May I ask, roughly, about how many words there are on that telegram, on that memoranda?

The WITNESS: It is, I should say, two-thirds of that page and one-third of the succeeding page.

JUROR: Would you call that a long or short memorandum?

THE WITNESS: I wouldn’t call it long. I was a little surprised when Mr. Donegan did. We often would do memoranda of two or three and sometimes four of these little memoranda pad sheets.

JUROR: That would all depend if you were interested in the subject or not?

4814

THE WITNESS: Yes.

[BY MR. DONEGAN]

Q Would you consider it long for the fact that you were not interested in the subject matter?

A Perhaps. I have no comment, really, on that.

Q I am again going back to the fact that you were interested primarily in economic matters.

A That’s true.

Q And that’s not an economic matter?

A That’s true.

Q And Mr. Hiss has written what I consider a rather lengthy digest of a material matter in which you are not interested?
…

JUROR: May we ask in regard to the pencil notations, what was done with them after they were brought to your attention, filed, thrown in the waste basket or torn up?

THE WITNESS: I am unable to give you too specific an answer. You remember I said there were two kinds. One was comments on somebody else’s memorandum in the making of the file, let’s say, of this German trade agreement. Those, as far as I know, would be continued with the file until the action had been taken, and then the file would be sent upstairs to the Division of Correspondence. I forget what it was called. And that division would then take the file to pieces, put into the permanent file such papers as would be

4815

kept, and destroy other. What they did with those memoranda, I am unable to say. This particular memoranda, however, under discussion are not that type. These are just a little digest, and I suppose these would go into the waste basket.

JUROR: Not be destroyed, just thrown away?

THE WITNESS: Be thrown away, I should suppose. Have I answered your question?

JUROR: Yes.
…

BY MR. DONEGAN:

Q Referring to those notes, Mr. Sayre, in the handwriting, nobody else would have access to those notes, would they, in Mr. Hiss’s handwriting?

A Of course they may have gone into the waste basket, charwomen cleaning up, messengers.

Q Outside of the waste basket, and outside the charwomen, would anybody else in the State Department receive those notes?

A I shouldn’t think so.

4822

Q With references to the charwomen and the waste basket, you say the practice was to make digests. Were there any security measures with reference to those digests?

A Now that would be up to Mr. Hiss. As I say, I doubt whether I ever saw those digests. I should suppose that he made those for his own, to refresh his own recollection as he handed me a sheaf of telegrams about which I asked for his explanation.

Q The point I am trying to bring out, … since the digest logically would only refer to the important parts, was there any practice followed in our office, or any part of the State Department, as to security measures on the digests?

A I can’t answer the question. So far as I know it was Mr. Hiss himself, if he made those digests, who would be responsible for disposing of.

Q I state it for the purpose of the record, that it was in Mr. Hiss’s handwriting. Therefore you would say in reference to those digests you would have no knowledge as to any security measures taken concerning them?

A I wouldn’t know.
…

p. 4826

Q I mean, how many are there [officials who got mimeographed copies of incoming cables]?

A I can’t answer that specifically. The department kept growing. I should think there must have been over 20 people in the Trade Agreements Division. It was headed by Mr. Harry Hopkins…. Henry Grady -

Q That answers my question, Mr. Sayre. There were over 20 people.

A To the best of my recollection.

Q With the exception of these data memoranda written in the handwriting of Mr. Alger Hiss, practically everything that comes into your office also goes to other Assistant Secretary, to the Under-Secretary and the Secretary, so there is hardly any paper there with the exception of those few that would be confined to just four people in your office?

A That is true, and I am not sure that there are any that would be confined to those four people because we would be talking with other divisions interested and concerned. I’d show that concerned divisions perhaps some, for their background information, some telegrams that had come in.

Q Do you know how many mimeographed copies were made of those and whether in the mimeograph room they could have been extracted?

A If they were extracted from my office I do not see why they couldn’t have been extracted from the mimeograph office. When you asked me how many, that depends on the character of the telegram. There were some telegrams so extremely confidential that they went to the Secretary’s office alone. There are telegrams, even though confidential,

4827

would go to each of the Assistant Secretaries and the Under-Secretary as well as to the Secretary’s office. Still others would be sent to all those whom I have mentioned and to each interested division, Division of Far Eastern Affairs, Division of Western European Affairs, Division of Trade Agreements and so forth and so on.

Q Would you mimeograph a form in more than 20 copies?

A No; such copies as were distributed were all mimeographed, if that’s what you mean.

Q That’s what I mean.

A They were circulated in mimeographed form and then the original would go to the division which had to take action. It was called the Action copy.

…

4830

BY JURORS:

…
Q You have spoken about Mr. Hiss, and his intellect and capacity, at various times. Do you think a man of such responsibility would take a digest of a document and then throw it in the waste paper basket where it would be available to the charwomen?

A I should think now. But I am just speculating. Now I lived closely with Alger Hiss for what was it, three years? Yes, three years. During all that time I never saw the slightest inclination toward Red tendencies. I never saw him arguing in favor of a Russian attitude in any problem. I found a man who was outstandingly loyal. Apart from everything else, I just can’t believe that he would let me down that way. I have lived with him day in and day out and I just can’t believe it.

Q Something has come up in the grand jury room before. What would prompt Mr. Chambers, out of 140 million people in the United States, to pick out Mr. Hiss? I mean, you might have some opinion yourself? You are a high ranking officer. What would prompt him to pick him out of 140 million, this man? Have you an opinion on it at all?

A Only personal speculation. I can’t answer of my knowledge

4831

I can only suppose that Alger Hiss knew Chambers, from that I read in the newspapers, and that’s the only way I have heard of it. They were friends, or at least exchanged confidences, prior to the time when Alger Hiss came into the State Department. Now, if that be true, Chambers might have seized upon Alger Hiss feeling that would make a very dramatic story and utilizing those previous intimacies. I do not know. I am speculating.

BY MR. DONEGAN:

Q With reference to that, we were discussing before your conversation with Mr. Marbury, Mr. Hiss’s attorney. Did Mr. Marbury offer any suggestions as to why Mr. Chambers would select Mr. Hiss?

A I did not discuss it with him at all.

(WITNESS EXCUSED)