Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case

PRAISE FOR PERJURY: THE HISS-CHAMBERS CASE

The definitive account.

—Reader’s Catalog

A historic event. . . . Stunningly meticulous, a monument to the intellectual ideal of truth stalked to its hiding place.

—GEORGE WILL, Newsweek

Lucidly written, impressively researched, closely argued. . . . The result is formidable.

—IRVING HOWE, New York Times Sunday Book Review

So far as any one book can dispel a large historical mystery, this book does it, magnificently.

—GARRY WILLS, New York Review of Books

The most exciting piece of history in recent memory.

—WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY

The most objective and convincing account we have of the most dramatic court case of the century.

—ARTHUR SCHLESINGER, JR

The most dispassionate, step-by-step account of [the case].

—GEOFFREY WARD, American Heritage

Devastatingly complete and detailed . . . an impressively unemotional blockbuster of fact.

—ALFRED KAZIN, Esquire

I do not envy Weinstein’s critics their task any more than I would want to be a defense counsel who had listened for three days while a professor read Weinstein’s book aloud to the jury and who now had to rise for rebuttal.

—MURRAY KEMPTON

[Weinstein] has gone as far as any historian could to establish the formal validity of the verdict. . . . His treatment of the resulting material strikes one as both judicious and properly skeptical; he writes of it with clarity and restraint. . . . Weinstein’s contribution, then, is major and I would say definitive.

—JOHN KENNETH GALBRAITH

Allen Weinstein has come up with the facts . . . [he] not only amasses new and old evidence, [he] demolishes arguments of government conspiracy.

—PETER S. PRESCOTT, Newsweek

Impressive . . . [Weinstein] makes persuasive use of this material in a narrative that is lucid, dramatic and even handed.

—ROBERT KIRSCH, Los Angeles Times Book Review

[A] superb and detailed book. . . . I do not see how anybody can read Allen Weinstein’s book and continue to believe in Alger’s innocence. . . . [Weinstein’s] obligation was to history. And he has performed it brilliantly.

—MERLE MILLER, Washington Post Book World

Meticulous and riveting. . . . Weinstein’s reexamination of the case is intriguing.

—JAMES R. SILKENAT, Business Week

Strong unembellished style . . . Stupendous . . . Irrefutable.

—D. KEITH MANO, National Review

So detailed and so thorough.

—VERMONT ROYSTER, Wall Street Journal

Calmly and elegantly reasoned.

—MICHAEL LEDEEN, Commentary

"An extraordinary job of disentangling the knotted strings of the case. . . . Weinstein has sorted it out. . . . [Perjury] should be required reading."

—DONALD MORRIS, Houston Post

If Hiss is to be exonerated, Weinstein’s almost monumental book will have to be refuted first.

—CONGRESSMAN ROBERT F. DRINAN, America

Weinstein’s research and presentation are superb

—ALYN BRODSKY, Miami Herald

Allen Weinstein has closed the unclosable case. The new evidence is startling. The old evidence is transformed by rigorous scholarship and deep compassion.

—CHARLES McCARRY

Authoritative . . . An objective and compendious treatise. . . . [Weinstein] has made a powerful contribution to the process of dispassionate historical analysis.

—MILTON S. GOULD, New York Law Journal

An engrossing and revealing book about one of the most controversial court cases of modern times . . . the validity of Professor Weinstein’s conclusions are endorsed from both the political right and the political left . . . fascinating.

—ROSCOE DRUMMOND, Christian Science Monitor

PERJURY

The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, founded at Stanford University in 1919 by Herbert Hoover, who went on to become the thirty-first president of the United States, is an interdisciplinary research center for advanced study on domestic and international affairs. The views expressed in its publications are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution.

www.hoover.org

Hoover Institution Press Publication No. 567

Hoover Institution at Leland Stanford Junior University,

Stanford, California 94305-6010

Copyright © 1978, 1997, 2013 by Allen Weinstein

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher and copyright holders.

For permission to reuse material from Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (Third Edition), ISBN 978-0-8179-1225-3, please access www.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of uses.

Efforts have been made to locate the original sources, determine the current rights holders, and, if needed, obtain reproduction permissions. On verification of any such claims to rights in the articles reproduced in this book, any required corrections or clarifications will be made in subsequent printings/editions.

First edition 1978

Second edition 1997

Third edition 2013

Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Weinstein, Allen, author.

Perjury : the Hiss-Chambers case / Allen Weinstein. — Third edition.

pages cm. — (Hoover Institution Press publication ; no. 567)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8179-1225-3 (pbk. : alk. paper)

ISBN 978-0-8179-1226-0 (e-book)

1. Hiss, Alger.   2. Chambers, Whittaker.   3. Communism—United States—History.   4. Subversive activities—United States—History.   5. Trials (Political crimes and offenses)—United States.   6. Trials (Perjury)—United States.   I. Title.   II. Series: Hoover Institution Press publication ; 567.

E748.H59W44 2013

364.1'31—dc23                   2013007993

For Adrienne

with love and gratitude

What pleased me most in this affair, the Assistant [Commissioner] went on, talking slowly, is that it makes such an excellent starting-point for a piece of work which I’ve felt must be taken in hand—that is, the clearing out of this country of all the foreign political spies, police, and that sort of—of—dogs. In my opinion they are a ghastly nuisance; also an element of danger. But we can’t very well seek them out individually. The only way is to make their employment unpleasant to their employers. The thing’s becoming indecent. And dangerous, too, for us, here.

Mr. Vladimir stopped again for a moment.

What do you mean?

The prosecution of this Verloc will demonstrate to the public both the danger and the indecency.

Nobody will believe what a man of that sort says, said Mr. Vladimir, contemptuously.

The wealth and precision of detail will carry conviction to the great mass of the public, advanced the Assistant Commissioner gently.

So that is seriously what you mean to do?

We’ve got the man; we have no choice.

—JOSEPH CONRAD

The Secret Agent

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Introduction

PART ONE: ORIGINS

I. HUAC: A Month of Headlines

II. Alger and Whittaker: The Crucible of Family

III. The Un-Secret Agent

IV. The Ware Group and the New Deal

PART TWO: ESPIONAGE

V. Perjury: A Question of Documents

VI. The Dual Life

VII. Spies and Bureaucrats: The Stolen Documents

PART THREE: CONCEALMENT

VIII. Perjury: A Question of Candor

IX. The Defection of Karl

X. Alger and Whittaker: The Forging of Careers

PART FOUR: DISCLOSURE

XI. Rumors and Whispers: The Pursuit of Evidence

XII. Deadlock: The First Trial

XIII. Conviction: The Second Trial

PART FIVE: CONSEQUENCES

XIV. Cold War Iconography I: Alger Hiss as Myth and Symbol

XV. Alger and Whittaker: The Vigil and the Death Watch

XVI. Cold War Iconography II: From Watergate to Red Square

PART SIX: MEMORY

XVII. The Hiss Labyrinth: Six Profiles

Appendix: Forgery by Typewriter: The Pursuit of Conspiracy, 1948–1997

Notes

Bibliography

About the Author

Index

Photo Section

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I began research on Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case in 1973, continued to work steadily on it prior to its initial publication in 1978, and have pursued my interest in the case up through the present. After four decades spent living with Hiss-Chambers, however, it would be impossible to thank every individual who has contributed to my understanding of the episode and its main characters.

Many of the country’s leading historians, archivists, museum directors, and librarians opened their research collections and their memories to me. I thank all of them. I remain indebted to the American Civil Liberties Union for filing a lawsuit in 1973 on my behalf demanding release of the FBI’s Hiss-Case records. Two years later, the ACLU won its case, thereby opening up thousands of pages of research materials to me and other scholars.

I had the privilege of working on the initial edition of Perjury with the late Ashbel Green of Knopf, one of the great editors in publishing. Two other distinguished editors worked on the book’s second edition, Robert Loomis and Geoff Shandler, both with Random House at the time. Throughout the process, I benefited from literary agent Robert Barnett’s wise council. In addition, I owe a special, personal thanks to several other friends for their timely encouragement, including editors Harold Evans and James Wade, historians Timothy Naftali, Ronald Radosh, and Alyce Radosh, and my long-time assistant Donna Gold.

Regarding the new edition of Perjury, I have received unwavering support from the Hoover Institution Press’s managing editor Jennifer Presley, book production manager Barbara Arellano, copy editor Keith Tidman, graphic designer Jennifer Navarrette, and other Hoover Institution Press consultants and staff who made this unique project come alive again.

I’m especially grateful for the first-rate support provided by my two assistants in Washington, Evin Rose Lipman and Lauren Vilbert. Both not only helped prepare Perjury’s new edition, but have assisted also on a number of my other projects with unfailingly good cheer.

Obviously, none of the individuals mentioned are responsible for any errors that might turn up in the book.

Finally, I owe a deep debt of gratitude for Perjury’s continued existence to Andrew and David Weinstein. They know why.

INTRODUCTION

Once upon a time, when the Cold War was young, a senior editor of Time accused the president of the Carnegie Endowment of having been a Soviet agent. The Time editor made his charge stick, aided by an obscure young congressman from the House Un-American Activities Committee, a tough federal prosecutor, and the director of the FBI. As a result, the Endowment president spent forty-four months in jail and became a cause célèbre; the magazine editor resigned and died a decade later, still obsessed with the case; the prosecutor became a federal judge; the director of the FBI lived to guard the republic against real or imagined enemies for another twenty-five years; and the young congressman left obscurity behind to become the thirty-seventh president of the United States.

The original edition of Perjury opened with that capsule summary, which evokes the fantastic and virtually improbable qualities of a timeless espionage novel. In fact, when the Hiss-Chambers case broke open, its main characters and events seemed more appropriate to spy fiction than to the realities of American life in the late 1940s. And although more than a half-century has passed since the jury at Alger Hiss’s second trial pronounced him guilty of perjury, the case remains controversial and the verdict leaves questions unanswered. Did Hiss become an undercover Communist while serving as a New Deal official? Did he turn over classified State Department files to Whittaker Chambers, a self-confessed former underground agent for the Communist Party? Or did Chambers, for obscure and malevolent reasons, deliberately set out to frame and destroy a respected public official?

Public debate over the case has resumed regularly in the generation since this book’s appearance in 1978. Alger Hiss’s late-1970s appeal for a new hearing based upon allegations of unfair prosecution tactics at his original trials was denied in July 1982.*1 Hiss’s accuser, Whittaker Chambers, died in 1961, but Alger Hiss continued to profess his complete innocence of Chambers’s allegations until his death in 1996. Richard Nixon’s return to prominence as a policy advocate during the 1980s brought periodic reminders in the American and global media of Nixon’s initial fame as Hiss’s main pursuer in the televised 1948 House committee hearings.

Memoirs by two leading Soviet intelligence chieftains, published in the past decade, both asserted Hiss’s complicity as an agent. Another former Soviet official-turned-historian, urged on by an appeal from a longtime Hiss supporter, at first announced in 1992 that his review of KGB files had turned up nothing on Hiss. Reminded that Chambers had accused Hiss of working not for the KGB’s civilian espionage predecessor agency but for Soviet military intelligence and amid widespread international focus on his assertion, the official (possibly after reviewing military intelligence files) recanted his earlier statement and claimed to have been pressured by Hiss’s advocate to issue it.

A Hungarian historian, after reviewing interrogations of a friend and colleague of Hiss’s during the 1930s, Noel Field (opened in Budapest for her inspection in 1993), announced that Field had not only admitted his own role in Soviet espionage but had implicated Alger Hiss as a confederate. Most recently, in 1996, release of the National Security Agency’s VENONA intercepts of cables sent by Soviet spymasters from Washington and New York to Moscow during World War II tagged one agent—referred to only by his alias ALES—as probably Alger Hiss. Hiss had been identified years earlier in the memoirs of defecting Soviet agent Oleg Gordievsky using the same alias, and this author’s research in Soviet KGB archives on another book project also turned up major new evidence on Alger Hiss’s and Whittaker Chambers’s involvement in Soviet espionage, described in this new edition of Perjury.

Thus has the case continued to make headlines and attract considerable media attention in the years since this book was first published. This new edition incorporates evidence available only in the past two decades and brings the essential public story of the episode up to the present.

The Hiss-Chambers case caused widespread political damage and much human suffering. Although nothing written at a distance of more than five decades can undo its effects, perhaps this analysis can explain the passion that the case still arouses. Few Americans in that earlier period failed to react: Republicans invoked Hiss’s presumed treachery to accuse the Democrats of condoning Communism-in-government during the New Deal–Fair Deal era. Moreover, in the decades that followed Alger Hiss’s trials, Whittaker Chambers’s life and ideas—widely publicized in his best-selling memoir (Witness) and in other writings—shaped and reinvigorated the conservative movement in the United States.

Many liberals, in turn, viewed the assault on Hiss as the spearhead of a right-wing attempt to discredit the Roosevelt-Truman domestic and foreign policies. Without the Alger Hiss case, Earl Latham noted in a study of the Washington spy probes, the six-year controversy that followed might have been a much tamer affair, and the Communist issue somewhat more tractable. But the Hiss case revolutionized public opinion and left in its wake the legacy of McCarthyism.

Within a month of Hiss’s conviction, the British atomic spy Klaus Fuchs had been arrested and Senator Joseph R. McCarthy had delivered his first Communism-in-government speech at Wheeling, West Virginia, an event that launched his political career. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were convicted at their New York trial in March 1951, further reinforcing public anger at real and alleged internal security lapses during the previous decade. Richard Nixon’s leadership in the HUAC probe of Hiss-Chambers restored the committee’s prestige and gave Nixon the reputation of a successful spy hunter, helping him gain a Senate seat in 1950 and the vice presidential nomination two years later.

Right-wingers turned Hiss into a symbol of the supposed treason that lay behind New Deal policies, particularly in the State Department. Those, like the 1952 Democratic presidential candidate, Adlai E. Stevenson, who had believed in Alger Hiss prior to his conviction, found themselves on the defensive. A native American, a man groomed for national leadership, in the words of Joseph Goulden, had been shown to be susceptible to subversion for a foreign power. That someone of Hiss’s background would become a Soviet agent seemed as improbable to many Americans as Harold Kim Philby’s exposure as a veteran Russian operative would later appear to many in Great Britain.

The symbolic lines were sharply drawn. For some, Alger Hiss’s close association with New Deal radicals and with the wartime policy of Soviet-American entente corroborated his guilt. For others, Hiss’s activities confirmed his innocence. But the clash of symbols did little to encourage efforts to analyze the evidence closely. Rather, it tended to confirm preconceptions. This attitude of partisan exhortation has characterized almost every early book written on the case, with the notable exception of Alistair Cooke’s.

Those politically and temperamentally disposed to support Hiss generally relied on a welter of conspiracy theories, which shared an underlying theme: that Whittaker Chambers perjured himself. Beyond that, the scripts invariably alternated between named and nameless plotters.

For over two decades after his release from prison, Alger Hiss tried to renew interest in the case. His efforts proved unsuccessful until, thanks to the Watergate crisis and the downfall of his former nemesis, Richard Nixon, Hiss regained public prominence. This time a new generation of Americans, unfamiliar with the complex facts of the case, responding both to the renewed publicity and to a post-Watergate penchant for conspiracies, hearkened to the claims of innocence expressed by Hiss in lectures, press conferences, and radio and television appearances.

Even before, many of the active left-liberals growing up in the Silent Fifties were well disposed to believe Hiss’s version of events. His innocence was a matter of faith, if only because Chambers, Nixon, Hoover, and others on the anti-Communist right were his political enemies. Hiss’s fate symbolized for young liberals the quintessence of McCarthyism, its paranoid fear of any public figure to the left of Dwight Eisenhower.

My interest in the case began in 1969, as part of a larger, yet uncompleted study of the Cold War and American society. I published an article on Hiss-Chambers and concluded that both men had probably lied; that Hiss hid facts concerning his personal relationship with Chambers, while the latter had falsely accused Hiss of Communist ties and espionage. I urged that the FBI files on the case be opened to provide the additional evidence needed to answer any unresolved questions. The proposal produced only one immediate result: the FBI opened a file on me. J. Edgar Hoover read a Washington Post account of my suggestion and wrote in its margin: What do we know about Weinstein . . . ?

In 1972, with support from the American Civil Liberties Union, I filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain FBI and Justice Department records on the case. Weinstein v. Kleindienst, Gray, et al., after three years of court struggle and many meetings with FBI and Justice Department officials, resulted in the release of over thirty thousand pages of classified FBI files and thousands of pages of additional Justice Department records. (Even Hoover’s do-not-file files on Hiss-Chambers surfaced.) During this same period my requests also brought to light extensive and formerly closed records from the CIA, the State Department, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, all bearing on the Hiss-Chambers case.

But my analysis and conclusions have not been drawn solely from FBI and other once-classified government records. I have sought and gained access to many previously undiscovered, unavailable, or unconsulted sources of documentary and oral evidence, both in this country and abroad. Visits to over two dozen public archives uncovered important new material and verified numerous details about the case from the papers or recollections of Adolf Berle, Malcolm Cowley, David Dallin, Ralph de Toledano, Allen Dulles, John Foster Dulles, Jerome Frank, Felix Frankfurter, Josephine Herbst, Stanley K. Hornbeck, Gardner Jackson, Karl Mundt, Richard Nixon, Lee Pressman, Francis B. Sayre, Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Harry S. Truman, Harry Dexter White, and others.

Much new evidence came from individuals close to either Hiss or Chambers who—in many cases—had refused previous requests for interviews from other researchers. Over eighty people who had special knowledge of the case or its protagonists gave interviews. They included every shade in the political spectrum: Soviet agents and congressional Red-hunters, close friends and advisers of both Chambers and Hiss, spies and former Communists, liberals and conservatives, and members of both the Hiss and Chambers families (including a half-dozen interviews with Alger Hiss, five meetings with Priscilla Hiss, and one with Donald Hiss). These interviews began in 1973 and continued into mid-1977, a process that involved travel to every corner of the United States and to England, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, and Mexico. More than forty of these people had never spoken openly about the case.

The revelations of five participants in Soviet intelligence work in the United States and Europe during the 1930s—Joszef Peters, Nadya Ulanovskaya, Maxim Lieber, Paul Willert, and Hede Massing—proved particularly instructive. Peters headed the American Communist Party’s underground work during the thirties, Ulanovskaya and her husband ran Russian military espionage in the United States from 1931 to 1934, and Lieber was for a time a close associate of Chambers in secret activities. With the exception of Peters, they gave either significant new information about the case or pertinent corroboration of Chambers’s account of Soviet espionage in the United States during the 1930s, as did several others who had been approached by Chambers but refused to turn spy, and who talked to me.

I interviewed J. Peters (the first Westerner to do so) in Budapest in 1975. By all accounts, Peters was the liaison between the American Communist Party’s underground branch and the Soviet agents who led their own separate groups in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s.

The story of Soviet espionage in the United States between 1931 and 1934 unfolded in rich detail during three days of talks in Jerusalem with Nadya Ulanovskaya, whose husband had been head of the Red Army’s Fourth Branch intelligence unit, based in New York. Ulanovskaya was also an agent at the time and knew Esther and Whittaker Chambers well: Nadya and Alexander (the husband) appear in Witness as the Russians Elaine (Maria) and Ulrich. Besides confirming the accuracy of Chambers’s account of the Soviet network in New York during the early 1930s, Ulanovskaya provided new information about its personnel and activities, and about another key figure in the Hiss-Chambers drama: Boris Bykov, who headed Red Army intelligence in America from 1936 to 1939 and was Chambers’s superior during the years prior to his defection in 1938. Nadya recounted a Moscow meeting in 1939 at which Bykov gave important details about Chambers’s break and about the nature of Russian espionage in Washington. (Three key witnesses from the FBI files also substantiate Bykov’s activities and the work of Chambers’s Washington spy ring: Henry Julian Wadleigh, William Edward Crane, and Felix Inslerman.)

Maxim Lieber further confirmed Chambers’s story, recalling his orders from Bykov and Peters in mid-1938 to track down Chambers (a defector by then), and telling of the latter’s role in Russian intelligence work earlier in the thirties. Paul Willert, who performed anti-Nazi courier work for the German Communist Party during the same period (before becoming a British agent in the Second World War), described his encounter with Chambers in 1938 when he (Willert) headed American operations for Oxford University Press. Willert gave Chambers translating work prior to the latter’s break with the Communist Party in April 1938, and later that year warned Chambers that a Comintern agent had arrived from Europe looking for him. With Willert’s help, I have identified that agent (Chambers tagged him incorrectly). Other interviews that corroborated aspects of Chambers’s underground work included talks with Hermann Field (Noel’s brother), Czech historian Karel Kaplan, Ella Winter (Lincoln Steffens’s widow), former publisher David Zabladowsky, and four of Chambers’s friends during this period—Robert Cantwell, Felix Morrow, Professor Meyer Schapiro, and his wife, Dr. Lillian Schapiro.

Professor Kaplan left Czechoslovakia in 1976 with a significant archive on modern Czech history collected during his eight years (1960–68) as an archivist for the Communist Party’s Central Committee. He had read the long interrogations of both Noel and Herta Field by Czech and Hungarian security officials, and in two long interviews in Munich, he described to me the material in those files that dealt with Alger Hiss.

Meyer and Lillian Schapiro gave me copies of Whittaker Chambers’s letters to them, never before shown to a researcher, which clarified a number of questions about the man’s years as a Communist agent and defector. The late Sylvia Salmi, widow of the anti-Communist radical journalist Herbert Solow, another of Chambers’s friends, made her husband’s invaluable papers available for the first time at her home in a Mexican village. They include an extraordinary cache of previously unsuspected material: a collection of letters from Chambers written during the months after his defection, a memo Solow prepared and had notarized in late 1938 outlining Chambers’s career in the Communist underground (based upon over a dozen interviews with Chambers from 1932 to 1938), a detailed card file on Soviet agents in the United States compiled by Solow (lengthier and more accurate for the 1930s than the FBI’s), and two unpublished articles on Russian espionage in America that Chambers wrote only months after his break, articles that he had instructed Solow to destroy and therefore did not consult himself at the time of the case. Solow’s files contain hard evidence that Chambers saved government documents stolen by Washington officials.

Two friends of Chambers from the 1920s, both then Communists, political cartoonist Jacob Burck and Samuel Krieger, who arranged for Chambers’s initial membership in the open Communist Party, fleshed out a portrait of the agent as a young man, while later intimates at Time—T. S. Matthews, Henry Grunwald, Samuel Welles, Robert Cantwell, and Duncan Norton-Taylor among them—helped clarify Chambers’s stormy years on the magazine. Interviewed in England, Matthews generously allowed me to read his unpublished memoir on Chambers. Other private records used in the book include Time’s archives, examined through the courtesy of its publishers, which document both Whittaker Chambers’s career as a journalist and his complex relationship with Henry Luce. Among the individuals who permitted me access to their own material on the case or its protagonists, most of which had never been released before, are Sidney Hook, Isaac Don Levine, Mrs. Mary Mundt, Robert Stripling, and Alden Whitman.

Esther Chambers, who lived in seclusion, was the only major member of the Hiss or Chambers families to decline an interview.*2 However, her son, John, a Washington journalist, answered questions about his father’s past on several occasions.

Alger Hiss’s friends and associates proved as informative as Chambers’s. Two of the psychiatrists associated with Hiss’s trial defense, Doctors Viola Bernard and Henry Murray, offered revealing glimpses into Hiss’s behavior. Five lawyers who worked on the Hiss defense and the widow of a sixth—Helen Buttenwieser, Claude B. Cross, John F. Davis, Mrs. Chester Lane, William L. Marbury, and Robert von Mehren—discussed their client and the nature of his trial strategy with me. Several typewriter experts hired by the Hiss defense after the second trial added facts not given to previous researchers, as did Manice de F. Lockwood, a close friend of Alger Hiss’s, who acted as an unpaid investigator for decades.

Priscilla Hiss commented on the case, though obliquely, in a series of luncheon meetings. A curtain has descended, Mrs. Hiss told me at our first meeting, and I don’t remember the period. I don’t want to remember it. Nevertheless, her remarks on the case were instructive. Another member of the family, Alger Hiss’s stepson, Dr. Timothy Hobson, saw me at his Northern California home and offered shrewd insights on the lives and character of the Hisses. Donald Hiss, Alger’s brother, met me for a talk at the Washington law firm of Covington, Burling, from which he had retired.

I went over numerous details of the case with Alger Hiss on six occasions between 1973 and 1976, once joined by his son, Anthony. The extensive and revealing Hiss defense files—divided among four lawyers’ offices in Baltimore, Boston, and New York during the period I studied them—were a major source of new information.

The role of Richard Nixon in the case and the full story of his rise to political prominence, which the late Mr. Nixon hid and distorted for the past half-century, has been reconstructed in this book for the first time from a variety of sources: HUAC’s chief of staff at the time, Robert Stripling; committee investigator Donald Appell; lawyer Nicholas Vazzana, who probed the case for Time in 1948; Father John Cronin, who first told Nixon about Alger Hiss’s alleged Communist ties; and journalist Isaac Donald Levine all contributed new information that helped piece together the story. Nixon’s aide Franklin Gannon listened politely as I outlined my findings during a 1975 visit to San Clemente. But the former president would not see me, although at a chance 1987 meeting, Nixon spoke in complimentary terms about this book despite the fact that its findings challenge in critical particulars his own oft-repeated version of his role in the case.*3

A number of others helpful to the original edition of Perjury appear in the Acknowledgments section. Regarding the book’s present edition, several of those most helpful in providing information and insights include Russian friends, only some of whom appear (for obvious reasons) among those described in the Acknowledgments. I am especially grateful to leading officials of the Russian Intelligence Service (SVR), including its former director, Yevgeny Primakov, General Vadim Kirpichenko, General Yuri Kobaladze (head of its press bureau, with primary responsibility for dealing with inquisitive Western scholars and journalists), and Oleg Tsarev, retired colonel and avid historian. Over numerous meetings, lunches, and dinners between 1993 and 1996 they shared their perspectives on matters related to Soviet intelligence work in America (which often disagree sharply with those found in Perjury). Each of these encounters added immeasurably to this historian’s education in multiarchival history.

My coauthor on The Haunted Wood, a more general history of Soviet espionage, Alexander Vassiliev, Russian journalist and briefly a KGB operative in his earlier years, has brought a keen intelligence and diligent research habits to the craft of collaboration that has affected not only our joint study but this edition of Perjury. Closer to home, the writer Sam Tanenhaus, while researching his biography of Whittaker Chambers, shared generously his insights into issues of evidence that have emerged only recently, including the Volkogonov episode, Anna Schmidt’s revelation of the Noel Field interrogations, and a number of other issues related to the case.

Among still others who have contributed to whatever merit resides in the new edition of Perjury and are acknowledged accordingly elsewhere in the book, one friend and guide to the labyrinth of Soviet espionage efforts in the United States—former senior editor at Crown, James O’Shea Wade—brought both wise counsel and inside information to various elements in this book as well as to The Haunted Wood. Finally, along with other scholars, I am grateful to the CIA and NSA historians and archivists—Michael Warner, Lou Benson, Brian Latell, and the others—whose skillful editing and diligence has placed the entire corpus of intercepted Soviet cables from the World War II years, including some of interest to this book, into the public domain with a remarkable measure of balance and sensitivity.

With the new evidence blended into the old, most of the troubling questions about the Hiss-Chambers case can be answered. Not surprisingly, the story that emerges, although as dramatic as the conspiracy theories, provides one new dimension: It actually happened.

—ALLEN WEINSTEIN

Washington, D.C.

December 2012

Notes

*1 See Chapter XVI.

*2 Others who refused my requests for interviews (or left such requests unanswered) included three alleged onetime members of the Communist Party’s Washington Ware Group—Nathan Witt, John Abt, and Jessica Smith Abt; also Judge Thomas Murphy and Julian Wadleigh.

*3 Beginning in 1969, I sought unsuccessfully to gain access to HUAC records dealing with the case, helped by Representatives Claude Pepper and Robert Drinan. But in 1976 the House Judiciary Committee sealed the now-defunct committee’s records for fifty years. Much new documentation on HUAC’s Hiss-Chambers inquiry, however, came from previously untapped papers at the Truman Library, from the Karl Mundt archives, and from the papers of Ralph de Toleadano at the Hoover Institution (Stanford University).

Part One

ORIGINS

If Arthur Croom was the man of the near future, Gifford Maxim was the man of the far future, the bloody, moral, apocalyptic future that was sure to come. Once Laskell’s sense of the contradiction between his two friends had been puzzling and intense. But now it was possible to hold Gifford Maxim and Arthur Croom in his mind with no awareness of contradiction at all. He was able to see them both as equally, right was perhaps not the word, but valid or necessary. They contradicted each other, the administrator and the revolutionary and perhaps eventually, one would kill the other. Yet now Laskell saw how they complemented each other to make up the world of politics.

—Lionel Trilling, The Middle of the Journey

I

HUAC: A MONTH OF HEADLINES

AUGUST 3, 1948: THE WITNESS

What was HUAC up to this time? A new mystery witness, perhaps, or some other bald move timed to make the next day’s front pages? Whatever the purpose, the House Un-American Activities Committee had reserved the Ways and Means Committee’s more spacious hearing room only minutes earlier. A large contingent of Washington reporters, summoned on short notice to the unexpected public session, wondered what surprise the unloved and unpredictable committee had concocted for that hot summer morning.

Three Republican congressmen and three Democrats, all opponents of the Truman administration, attended the session. Representing the Republican majority were Karl E. Mundt of South Dakota, John McDowell of Pennsylvania, and a first-term Californian named Richard M. Nixon. The Democrats seated on the dais were John Rankin of Mississippi, J. Hardin Peterson of Florida, and F. Edward Hébert of Louisiana. Chairman J. Parnell Thomas, under suspicion of having received kickbacks from his employees (a crime for which he would be indicted that year and later convicted), did not appear on August 3.

Thomas’s predicament was only the latest threat to the committee’s standing. John Rankin, who spiked most hearings with Negrophobic, anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic tirades, and the other members of HUAC had trouble distinguishing between alleged Communist activities and participation in the New Deal. HUAC, first charged in 1938 with probing all varieties of domestic political extremism, had zeroed in—whether under Democratic or Republican chairmen—on the Democratic Party’s liberal left more than on avowed Communists or fascists.¹

Its well-publicized hearings seldom bore any apparent relationship to the drafting of legislation. The committee’s 1947 hearings on subversion in the motion-picture industry, for example, although producing indictments of the Hollywood Ten, ended by generating considerable opposition to HUAC’s ruthless headline-hunting style, persuading many liberals as well as those on the left that they had seen the authentic face of a modern political witchhunt. Even some conservatives in Congress and in the press corps began to attack the committee for exceeding its original mandate, and one reporter, Bert Andrews of the New York Herald Tribune, won a Pulitzer Prize for a series of articles critical of its Hollywood hearings. HUAC’s tarnished reputation made it vulnerable by mid-1948, and Truman aides drafted a bill to abolish the committee if the November election restored Democratic control of Congress.²

Lying low, the group planned no major new probes before the election. As a committee, we are getting some ‘panning’ from our colleagues on the floor and others, Acting Chairman Mundt wrote Thomas in late July 1948. This will require some careful handling and some thorough planning. Only at the last minute did the committee decide to hear a witness who had testified days earlier before a Senate investigating subcommittee.

Elizabeth Bentley—fortyish, plump, sharp-nosed, and a former courier for Communist agents—had first approached the FBI in 1945. Director J. Edgar Hoover had deluged Truman, Attorney General Tom Clark, and others in 1945 and 1946 with memos detailing Bentley’s allegations of widespread Soviet espionage, but the administration had taken no action, perhaps because the informant offered no corroboration for her story.³

At the outset of Truman’s 1948 presidential campaign, however, Bentley’s well-publicized appearances before congressional committees revived the Communism-in-government issue. Dubbed the Red Spy Queen by the press, Bentley told HUAC on July 31 that from 1938 to 1945 she had made contact with almost two dozen Washington officials, Communists, and left-sympathizers, who—according to the witness—had delivered secret documents to her for transmission to Russian agents.*1

Bentley named names—including some prominent government aides, first mentioned publicly at her HUAC appearance and not in earlier congressional testimony. Lauchlin Currie, who had served as a top assistant to President Franklin Roosevelt, was one; and Harry Dexter White, former assistant secretary of the Treasury, chief architect of the World Bank, and, after 1946, director of the International Monetary Fund, was another. Although Bentley ranged more widely in her charges before HUAC than during Senate testimony, she offered only her version—her word—and Truman dismissed the accusations as false and politically motivated. Still, public interest in Bentley’s appearances persuaded Thomas, Mundt, and HUAC’s chief investigator, Robert E. Stripling, a Democratic holdover from the chairmanships of Martin Dies and John Rankin, of her usefulness. Staff members searched for evidence to reinforce Bentley’s tale of a Communist spy ring widespread in government and produced statements by a not-too-cooperative witness whom committee investigators had interviewed in March. That witness became the surprise of August 3.⁴

Whittaker Chambers had led three lives since attending Columbia: as an open Party Communist journalist and a freelance translator during the late 1920s and early 1930s; as a Communist underground agent during the mid-thirties; and, since 1939, as a writer and editor for Time. During the March session Chambers had asked that he not be subpoenaed,*2 and summoning him on August 2 to corroborate Bentley seems to have been Karl Mundt’s idea. Mundt, in turn, acted on the suggestion of a New York World-Telegram reporter, Frederick Woltman, who had learned of Chambers’s past from ex-radical friends and from the FBI.⁵

The forty-seven-year-old Chambers made an unimpressive appearance in executive session on the morning of the 3rd. He was short and pudgy, Richard Nixon later wrote. His clothes were unpressed; his shirt collar was curled up over his jacket. He spoke in a rather bored monotone [and] seemed an indifferent if not a reluctant witness.

Chambers asked permission to read an opening statement, and after quickly skimming it, Robert Stripling agreed. The witness proceeded listlessly through the few pages of text until one committee member perked up at the names Chambers mentioned and interrupted: Hell, why is this in executive session? This should be in the open! Anticipating good publicity, HUAC adjourned to hold a public hearing in the Ways and Means Committee room.⁶

In the witness chair Chambers, his voice continually trailing off, read once more the statement explaining his decision to leave the Communist Party:

Almost exactly nine years ago—that is, two days after Hitler and Stalin signed their pact [in August 1939]—I went to Washington and reported to the authorities what I knew about the infiltration of the United States Government by Communists.

After defecting in 1938, Chambers asserted, he had lived in hiding, sleeping by day and watching through the night with gun and revolver within easy reach. He then described his reasons for thinking that the Communists might try to kill him:

For a number of years I had myself served in the underground, chiefly in Washington, D.C. The heart of my report to the United States Government [in 1939] consisted of a description of the apparatus to which I was attached. It was an underground organization of the United States Communist Party developed, to the best of my knowledge, by Harold Ware, one of the sons of the Communist leader known as Mother Bloor. I knew it at its top level, a group of seven or so men, from among whom in later years certain members of Miss Bentley’s organization were apparently recruited. The head of the underground group at the time I knew it was Nathan Witt, an attorney for the National Labor Relations Board. Later, John Abt became the leader. Lee Pressman was also a member of this group, as was Alger Hiss, who, as a member of the State Department, later organized the conference at Dumbarton Oaks, San Francisco, and the United States side of the Yalta Conference.⁷

Reporters present realized that they had their lead for the next day’s papers. Witt and Abt, also named by Bentley, were middle-rank bureaucrats and had long since left the government. So had Pressman, who was now general counsel of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). But Alger Hiss in such company was news. Since leaving the State Department, Hiss had become president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The next day’s papers used variants of the headline TIME EDITOR CHARGES CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT HEAD WAS SOVIET AGENT, which did not reflect the qualifying sentences Chambers had used to describe the ring:

The purpose of this group at that time was not primarily espionage. Its original purpose was the Communist infiltration of the American Government. But espionage was certainly one of its eventual objectives.⁸

Eager for additional details—and names—Stripling and the committee members intensified their questioning. Had Chambers named all the members of this secret New Deal Communist cell? No, the witness responded; he had singled out only the most prominent ones—Witt, Abt, Pressman, and Alger Hiss. Other members of the group were . . . Donald Hiss [Alger’s younger brother], Victor Perlo, [and] Charles Kramer (originally Charles Krivitsky), all low-to-middle-rank functionaries at the time within the New Deal. The Ware Group, he explained, had met either at the apartment of Henry Collins, another member, or at the violin studio of Harold Ware’s sister, Helen. Collins collected the dues. Ware’s superior was a man named J. Peters (to the best of my knowledge, the head of the whole underground United States Communist Party), who visited the group from time to time. Peters had been the object of a deportation hearing in 1947, but, according to Stripling, neither immigration authorities nor HUAC (which had become interested in Peters during the 1947 Hollywood Ten hearings) had been able to locate him.

After breaking, Chambers said, he had discussed his activities with Assistant Secretary of State Adolf A. Berle in September 1939 and later repeated his story several times to FBI and State Department agents who sought him out. Stripling wanted to know about encounters with Washington underground contacts after fleeing the party. Chambers told of one with Alger Hiss:

MR. CHAMBERS: . . . I went to the Hiss home one evening at what I considered considerable risk to myself and found Mrs. Hiss at home. Mrs. Hiss is also a member of the Communist Party.

MR. MUNDT: Mrs. Alger Hiss?

MR. CHAMBERS: Mrs. Alger Hiss. Mrs. Donald Hiss, I believe, is not. . . . Mr. Hiss came in shortly afterward, and we talked and I tried to break him away from the party. As a matter of fact, he cried when we separated, when I left him, but he absolutely refused to break. . . . I was very fond of Mr. Hiss.

MR. MUNDT: He must have given you some reason why he did not want to sever the relationship.

MR. CHAMBERS: His reasons were simply the party line.

Chambers then said he had also visited Harry Dexter White to urge him to break with Communism. Again, as in the case of Hiss, Chambers reported failure. White and Hiss, he testified, had been separated—at the orders of J. Peters—from further direct contact with the Ware Group’s operations in 1936 and placed in a parallel apparatus that reported through Chambers to Peters. The party had concluded that these two officials were going places in the Government . . . were an elite group . . . and their position in the Government would be of very much more service to the Communist Party than as members of a larger secret group. I should make the point that these people were specifically not wanted to act as sources of information, the witness observed, thus denying that Hiss, White, or any of the others had ever committed espionage.⁹

Most committee members did not anticipate the great press attention and public interest that would overwhelm HUAC in the next twenty-four hours. Only Nixon knew beforehand of Chambers’s charges against Alger Hiss.

In mid-1948 the freshman congressman from Whittier, California, was little known outside his own district. Richard Nixon—lawyer, Navy veteran, congressional candidate by virtue of a newspaper ad—had replaced his Democratic predecessor, Jerry Voorhis, as a member of HUAC. He had absented himself from the committee’s more controversial hearings, such as the Hollywood investigation in Los Angeles. His major public concern prior to Chambers’s appearance involved joint sponsorship of the Mundt-Nixon Bill to outlaw the Communist Party, HUAC’s pet measure earlier that year. Although Nixon recalled that the committee had not initially considered Chambers’s testimony especially important, HUAC rarely decided to move immediately from executive to public session without reasonable assurance of good press coverage. Nixon further insisted that he considered for a moment the possibility of skipping the public hearing altogether, so that I could return to my office and get out some mail.

Nixon’s recollection is not perfectly clear. He did attend the session, and although he claimed that his thoughts wandered to other subjects, he participated actively in the questioning. This was the first time I had ever heard of either Alger or Donald Hiss, Nixon incorrectly wrote in 1962. He had actually been briefed extensively on the allegations against the Hisses and other Ware Group members for the preceding year and a half.¹⁰

Shortly after Nixon entered Congress, a Republican colleague, Charles Kersten of Wisconsin, took him to Baltimore for the first of several meetings with a Catholic priest named John Cronin, who specialized in collecting data on Communist infiltration. He had access to FBI files and, in 1945, produced a confidential report to the American Catholic bishops, The Problem of American Communism, in which he listed the names of many actual and alleged Communists—including Alger Hiss. The priest’s briefings of Nixon and Kersten included long discussions of Soviet espionage in America and mentioned the presence of certain Communists . . . in the State Department. Hiss figured prominently in Cronin’s report to the bishops, a copy of which Nixon read. But during his interrogation of Chambers, and in subsequent HUAC hearings, Nixon never mentioned Cronin’s assistance, or his own prior knowledge of the charges.

Alger Hiss learned about Chambers’s HUAC accusations on the evening of August 2, when a reporter phoned him for comment on leaks from a committee source about the impending testimony. Afternoon papers and news broadcasts covered Chambers’s appearance at length, and most stories emphasized the statements about Hiss, who immediately sent a telegram to J. Parnell Thomas:

MY ATTENTION HAS BEEN CALLED BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PRESS TO STATEMENTS MADE ABOUT ME BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE THIS MORNNING BY ONE WHITTAKER CHAMBERS. I DO NOT KNOW MR. CHAMBERS AND, SO FAR AS I AM AWARE, I HAVE NEVER LAID EYES ON HIM. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE STATEMENTS ABOUT ME MADE TO YOUR COMMITTEE. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD MAKE THIS TELEGRAM A PART OF YOUR COMMITTEE’S RECORDS AND I WOULD FURTHER APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY OF APPEARING BEFORE YOUR COMMITTEE TO MAKE THESE STATEMENTS FORMALLY AND UNDER OATH. I SHALL BE IN WASHINGTON ON THURSDAY [AUGUST 5] AND HOPE THAT THAT WILL BE A CONVENIENT TIME FROM THE COMMITTEE’S POINT OF VIEW FOR ME TO APPEAR. ALGER HISS.

A copy of the wire went to the chairman of the Carnegie Endowment’s Board of Trustees, John Foster Dulles, the man primarily responsible for having brought Alger Hiss to the organization.

The previous day Hiss had returned from a month’s vacation in Peacham, Vermont, where his wife stayed with their seven-year-old son, Tony. Priscilla Hiss remained unaware of the uproar, Alger Hiss recalled in a 1975 interview with the author, until he phoned her late on the afternoon that Chambers testified. I gave her the news as soon as I got through the newspaper calls, sometime around 5 PM. . . . I told her just what I planned to do [to testify before HUAC]. I said, ‘Don’t worry, little one. This will all blow over. I will handle it.’ . . . I ‘pooh-poohed’ it. Hiss remembered the incident differently—and more casually—at the time. As we have no telephone in Peacham and make use of the general store for long-distance calls,¹⁰ he wrote Dulles on August 5, I have not had a chance to talk directly to Priscilla though I wrote her as soon as I learned of Chambers’ testimony.¹¹

The conflict between these versions sharpens when compared to the recollections of Edmund F. Soule, Hiss’s longtime Peacham landlord, neighbor, and friend. Soule was returning to Peacham by train in August 1948. During a New York City stopover that afternoon he

saw Alger’s name in a paper, with this accusation by Chambers. . . . I remember taking the train (perhaps the Montrealer) to Montpelier, being met, and bringing this dreadful news to Prossy [Priscilla Hiss’s nickname], who was up in Peacham, staying with my Mother and the baby boy Tony. . . . I can remember getting back to Peacham and hearing Prossy try to remember who this Whittaker Chambers was. Either to Mother or both of us she said something like: Wait a minute . . . I remember a dreadful man named Crosley or something like that . . . and that was her identification of the creature.

Presumably, Mrs. Hiss’s recollection of Crosley was based on the photographs of Chambers in the afternoon paper brought by Soule. She, as I remember it, seemed to be casting over in her mind what could be remembered, Soule later wrote, and sort of thoughtfully, quietly, slowly said something like: ‘Yes . . . I remember an awful man we knew once’ . . . and went on a bit like that, speculating, ‘Could that be the person?’ Mrs. Hiss, despite her initial shock of recognition, could recall almost nothing else about Crosley when questioned by HUAC on August 18. Hiss later acknowledged only a slight sense of familiarity about some of his press photographs.†4,¹²

The committee went ahead without waiting for Hiss. Karl Mundt began the next day’s session on August 4 by reading Hiss’s telegram and scheduling his appearance for the following morning. The first witness was a Russian-born former government official, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, who had been described by Bentley as a leading underground Communist in Washington and organizer of what HUAC began referring to as the Silvermaster Group.

Silvermaster dismissed Bentley’s false and fantastic charges, denouncing his accuser as a neurotic liar. When Robert Stripling posed the committee’s standard opening question—Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?—Silvermaster invoked the Fifth Amendment. He also refused to state whether he knew Bentley or others whom she had implicated.*5,¹³

Later, Stripling introduced into the record a memorandum prepared by his staff that dealt with the career of another alleged Communist spymaster, J. Peters, whom Chambers had mentioned. The memo described Peters’s role as a former Comintern (Communist International) representative in the United States and his CP fund-raising activities in Hollywood. It did not mention specific links between Peters and espionage, however, despite the extensive list of aliases at the head of the memo: RECORD OF J. PETERS, ALSO KNOWN AS J. PETER, J. V. PETERS, ALEXANDER GOLDBERGER, ROBERTS, STEVE LAPIN, PETE STEVENS, STEVE MILLER, ISADOR BOORSTIN, STEVEN LAPUR, ALEXANDER STEVENS. Peters was using the last of these aliases when Immigration and FBI agents located and subpoenaed him later that month.¹⁴ By the time the morning session wound down, Whittaker Chambers, called originally only to support Bentley’s story, had clearly upstaged the Red Spy Queen.

Alger Hiss had spent the day at his desk. Messages of support—letters, phone calls, and telegrams—flowed in from friends and former associates in government. One such message, a copy of a letter sent to Hiss’s brother, Donald, by a Baltimore attorney named William L. Marbury, declared confidently that if you and Alger are party members, then you can send me an application. Marbury offered his services, and later that day he received a call from Alger asking him to come the next day to Donald Hiss’s Washington office in the prestigious law firm of Covington, Burling, Rublee, Acheson, and Shorb.

After working on his opening statement to the committee, Hiss left early that evening for Washington. There he obtained and scanned (with the help of his brother, Donald, and a well-known mutual friend) a transcript of Chambers’s testimony: I had the benefit of Dean Acheson’s advice last night, Hiss wrote Dulles the following day, as I was trying to compose my own thoughts.

Four men met in Donald Hiss’s office on the morning of August 5 for a last-minute discussion of Alger’s appearance before HUAC: the Hiss brothers, Acheson, and Marbury. Alger asked Acheson and Marbury to accompany him to the hearing. Acheson declined, perhaps fearing possible embarrassment to Truman, who nominated him to be secretary of state later that year. Another friend, Joseph E. Johnston, a lawyer from Birmingham, Alabama, joined Hiss and Marbury at the hearing room. As it turned out, Hiss required very little help from his friends that day.¹⁵

AUGUST 5: THE QUARRY

The audience packed into the caucus room of the Old House Office Building had to put up with some grandstanding by Congressmen Rankin and McDowell and the appearance of an unimportant witness before Alger Hiss took the oath. He repeated, ‘So help me God’ twice, Robert Stripling remembers, which was a little frosting on the cake I’d never heard before.¹⁶

Hiss’s physical appearance contrasted strikingly with that of his corpulent and rumpled accuser. Hiss was handsome and relaxed. From the beginning of his testimony, he smiled frequently and displayed none of Chambers’s nervous mannerisms. Hiss began by reading a statement denying unqualifiedly the charges made by Chambers:

I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party. I do not and never have adhered to the tenets of the Communist Party. I am not and never have been a member of any Communist-front organization. I have never followed the Communist Party line, directly or indirectly. To the best of my knowledge, none of my friends is a Communist. . . . To the best of my knowledge, I never heard of Whittaker Chambers until 1947, when two representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked me if I knew him and various other people, some of whom I knew and some of whom I did not know. I said I did not know Chambers. So far as I know, I have never laid eyes on him, and I should like to have the opportunity to do so.

Hiss then outlined his relationships with others whom Chambers had mentioned as New Deal Communists. Henry Collins had been a boyhood friend whom he later knew socially at Harvard Law and during the New Deal. Lee Pressman had also been a law-school classmate and coworker on the Harvard Law Review; he and Pressman had both served on the legal staff of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration as assistants to general counsel Jerome Frank, later a federal judge. Hiss had seen Pressman only occasionally and infrequently since 1935. Nathan Witt and John Abt were also members of the AAA legal staff: I knew them both in that capacity. I believe I met Witt in New York a year or so before I came to Washington [in 1933]. He had also met Charles Kramer at the AAA, but had seen the last three persons only infrequently since 1935. Hiss did not remember ever knowing Victor Perlo. Except as I have indicated, the statements made about me by Mr. Chambers are complete fabrications, his statement concluded. I think my record in the Government service speaks for itself.¹⁷

Nevertheless, Hiss outlined that record for the committee. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1929 and, at the recommendation of Felix Frankfurter (a Supreme Court Justice in 1948 but a Harvard law professor in 1929), he clerked for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. After a few years of practice in Boston and New York, Hiss held several New Deal posts, working first for the AAA, next for the Senate’s Nye Committee investigation of the munitions industry, and briefly for the Justice Department under the immediate supervision of Stanley Reed, another U.S. Supreme Court Justice in 1948. Hiss joined the State Department in 1936 and rose quickly; he attended the Yalta Conference as a member of the American delegation and, in 1945, presided at the UN organizing meeting in San Francisco. He left State in 1947 for the Carnegie Endowment.

I had no respect for Mundt, for Thomas, Rankin (I thought he was evil), for most of the others, Hiss later said.¹⁸ On that August 5, however, he hid his scorn, handling each question directly, if sometimes cautiously, and displaying a far greater skill at sparring with Stripling and committee members than had been demonstrated by most of his predecessors in the HUAC witness chair. Thus when Stripling pressed Hiss about his claim never to have seen Chambers, Hiss stated that the name meant absolutely nothing to him. Stripling produced a photo of Chambers taken earlier that week, pointing out that people who remembered the latter from the 1930s said he was much heavier today. Hiss responded that he preferred to meet Chambers in person. He had studied all available newspaper photos and, if Stripling’s was an accurate picture of Chambers, he is not particularly unusual looking. He looks like a lot of people, I might even mistake him for the [acting] chairman of this Committee. When the laughter in the hearing room died down, Mundt responded: I hope you are wrong in that.

Mundt had earlier confessed puzzlement over Hiss. What possible motive could Chambers have had for falsely mentioning Donald Hiss and Alger Hiss in connection with these other six (Witt, Pressman, Perlo, Kramer, Abt, and Ware), especially when there seems to be no question about [their] subversive connections? Hiss claimed to be equally baffled:

MR. HISS: I wish I could have seen Mr. Chambers before he testified.

MR. RANKIN: After all the smear attacks against this committee and individual members of this committee in Time Magazine, I am not surprised at anything that comes out of anybody connected with it. (Laughter.)

Hiss denied flatly all of Chambers’s assertions, including the story about visiting him after the break with the party. To all of these charges Hiss’s response was adamant: I am testifying the exact opposite. He acknowledged that in June 1947 two FBI agents had interrogated him:

They asked me a number of questions not unlike the points Mr. Chambers testified to. . . . They asked me if I knew the names of a number of people. One of those names was Chambers. I remember very distinctly because I had never heard the name Whittaker Chambers.

That was the first occasion I had ever heard the name, Hiss would reiterate to one of his lawyers the following year. I did not [recognize it] and I told them so. That was all there was to the reference to him.

But Chambers’s was not simply one name out of the many casually dropped by the agents. On June 2, 1947, Hiss signed a statement prepared by the FBI agents that contained the following specific denial: I am not acquainted with an individual by the name of Whittaker Chambers. No individual by that name has ever visited my home on any occasion so far as I can recall. The statement also described Hiss’s recollections of Pressman, Witt, Ware, Kramer, Collins, Abt, and other old acquaintances. The only other individuals mentioned in the document whom Hiss claimed not to know were Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Richard Post, and a man named Gene or Eugene.¹⁹

Hiss also described an earlier meeting with the FBI in 1946—this one at his request while he was still at the State Department. Secretary of State Byrnes had summoned him shortly after Hiss returned from attending a UN conference in London. Byrnes said that several congressmen were about to denounce him