Witness

by Whittaker Chambers

  In effect, not Hiss, but I, henceforth became the defendant in a great public trial, in which, in a manner startlingly reminiscent of the mechanics of the great Soviet public trials, press, radio, public personages, organizations of all kinds and a section of the Government itself were mobilized against the chosen victim while public opinion was enveloped in a smog of smearing whispers that rolled across the nation and far beyond its frontiers.41 Through almost every medium of communication, the personal assault upon me was kept at a peak of uproar. Meanwhile, in the course of the whole Hiss Case, not more than five journalists were sent to find out at first hand what I might really be like. Only two of them, Bert Andrews, the chief of the New York Herald-Tribune Washington bureau, and Nicholas Blatchford, of the Washington Daily News, proved equal to the assignment.

  This personal assault upon me was the only real defense that Alger Hiss and his supporters ever developed. Each month that passes makes it clearer that it was chiefly a deafening noise. But it is also clear that it was a remarkable tribute to the propaganda skill of the Hiss forces and their enormous hidden power within the national community and the Government—a power rooted in the special crisis of history in which the nation, like the rest of the world, finds itself.

  As a result of Hiss’s questions and the strategy they initiated on August 25, 1948, I was to remain the defendant in that great public trial for almost two years.

  XXVI

  I had had warning of what was coming. On the evening of August 24th, I sat in Time’s Washington bureau. I had been told that Alger Hiss had released to the press a number of questions calling for a public investigation of me. Time’s bureau chief was on the telephone. Over the wire came the dry, rasping voice of John F. Davis, Hiss’s counsel at the hearing next day. Halfway across the room, I could hear him repeating the questions put by Hiss: “I would like to ask him where and under what names he has lived. .... I would like to ask him if he has ever been convicted of a crime.... I would like to ask him....”

  I saw at once that it was the counterattack, though I did not then foresee its massive development. But I sensed that in a nation conditioned by press, radio and movies to crime and scandal, while knowing almost nothing about Communists, their motives and methods, and, much less about ex-Communists, the tactic was shrewd and dangerous. It struck me a psychological blow before the hearing began.

  My approach to the hearing was distressing. The plaza in front of the Capitol was alive with people. A newsboy was holding up a paper with a banner headline in mock Time style: C (FOR CONFRONTATION) DAY! I repeated to myself the words that Luce had repeated to me a few days before: “Neither this man’s nor his parents’ is the sin, but that the works of God might be made manifest.”

  As Ben Mandel shepherded me to the Ways and Means Committee room, people, trying to get into the hearing, stood two abreast in a long line down the corridor. Guards slipped us into the hearing room. I was shown to a light, straight-back chair, where I was to sit among the spectators, just below the Committee’s rostrum, and just behind the press tables. As I took my place, a cold wave of aversion and hostility swelled out toward me from the spectators. When I stood up, a few minutes later, to identify Alger Hiss, there were titters among them. “Good people,” I thought, “it is yourselves you are laughing at. For I stand here not for myself, but for you.”

  A little girl about seven years old was sitting next to me. She had come with her father, mother and a woman whom I took to be her grandmother. Evidently, they had come to spend the day, for they had brought their lunch in a pasteboard box. When I sat down, the father got up and changed places with his daughter so that the child would not have to sit beside me.

  XXVII

  I suspect that Hiss and I went into the August 25th hearing with the same thought: to endure. Our reasons were different. Hiss was not often master of the situation that day, but he was master of himself to the extent of knowing that he must somehow, at any cost, outlast the entrapping questions that were about to be put to him. He knew that they were entrapping, and that they would be put, because he, too, had tried to reach the records on which they were based, and found that the Committee’s investigators had got there first. Nothing indicates to me more clearly how well Hiss understood the importance of those “petty housekeeping details” that he was presently to complain about. But Hiss also knew that, if he could somehow hold off the onslaught, his questions against me were a reserve tactic that would probably turn the tide for him.

  I was master neither of the situation nor of anything else. My sole thought was to endure a situation that I felt in prospect, and much more acutely while it was going on, as pure horror. In face of that intensely hostile crowd and the ordeal of taking the stand publicly again, I scarcely cared whether or not the hearing was all that stood between me and powerful enemies. I had no great faith that it would help much in any case. Vaguely, I hoped that the Committee would at least be able to clinch the fact that Alger Hiss was lying about me. I was not optimistic. I merely wanted to get through that day, as a man wants to get through a prolonged sickness, not caring much in the end whether it is by surviving or dying.

  I had heard rumors that I was to be the Committee’s first witness. With a cowardly relief, I heard Hiss sworn in. He was accompanied, as always, by counsel, the lawyer whose rasping voice I had heard the night before, issuing from the telephone in the Time42 office. This was John F. Davis, who, like Hiss, and many of the other middle-aging men around him, somehow managed to look like a college boy.

  Hiss moved at once to take the offensive.

  MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Hiss, you are here this morning in response to a subpoena which was served upon you on August 17 at the Commodore Hotel in New York City; is that correct?

  MR. HISS: Mr. Stripling, as I told the subcommittee on that day, there was no need to serve a subpoena on me. A subpoena was handed to me. I had already told the committee I would be very glad to be here on August 25.

  MR. STRIPLING: You are here also in response to a subpoena, however?

  MR. HISS: I received the subpoena; yes, Mr. Stripling.

  MR. STRIPLING: You are here in response to it; is that correct? MR. HISS: To the extent that my coming here quite voluntarily after having received the subpoena is in response to it; I would accept that statement.

  At once, Hiss asked if he might read into the record the questions about me (with some amplifications) that he had already released to the press. The Committee decided to take the request under advisement.

  Hiss and I were then asked to stand up—the first time that any large group of people had seen us face to face.43 Hiss was asked if he knew me.

  MR. HISS: I identify him, Mr. Stripling.

  MR. STRIPLING: As who?

  MR. HISS: As George Crosley.

  I was sworn in and asked if I knew Hiss.

  MR. CHAMBERS: I do.

  MR. STRIPLING: Who is he?

  MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Alger Hiss.

  This was the hearing, about three weeks after my first testimony, when I put on record my realization that I had met Alger Hiss almost a year before I had at first supposed.

  MR. STRIPLING: When did you first meet Mr. Hiss?

  MR. CHAMBERS: I think about 1934.

  MR. STRIPLING: When did you last see Mr. Hiss?

  MR. CHAMBERS: About 1938.

  Again, Hiss was questioned about his failure to identify me from photographs. He promptly used this question to try again to secure my secret testimony.

  MR. STRIPLING: When you appeared before the committee in ex-executive session in Washington on August 16, you were again shown a picture of Mr. Whittaker Chambers.

  MR. HISS: I think I was shown two pictures that day, according to my recollection.

  MR. STRIPLING: You also failed at that time to identify Mr. Chambers as Mr. Crosley.

  MR. HISS: I said that the pictures were definitely of a face that was not unfamiliar to me. There was a certain familiarity about it. Incidentally, Mr. Stripling
is referring to certain testimony of mine taken in executive session, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if there is any reason why all of the testimony thus far taken in this case should not be made public. A good deal of it has reached the press by one means or another. There is a considerable amount of distortion and misunderstanding. I have no reason to want any of that testimony—mine or Mr. Chambers’ , which I have never seen—to remain secret....

  MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the committee make all of the testimony public as of this moment.

  MR. HISS: I think that would be a very good idea.

  MR. MUNDT: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that yesterday, in your absence, the members of the committee who were here decided that today we would make all the testimony available....

  MR. HISS: I am very gratified.

  Hiss was asked about the circumstances under which he had first met George Crosley. He countered with a tactic that was to serve him throughout the morning—a charge, sometimes direct, sometimes implied, that he could not testify exactly because the Committee was depriving him of the pertinent records.

  MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Hiss, would you relate to the committee the circumstances under which you first met the person you have identified that you knew as George Crosley?

  MR. HISS: Mr. Stripling, I have already in an effort to be helpful to the committee when I came to the executive session on the 16th willingly in response to a request from the chairman given the best recollection that I have.

  As I said then, I have no opportunity to consult records. The connection between Crosley and Chambers did not enter my mind until Monday morning, the 16th, while I was on the way by train to the afternoon session. According to my best recollection, without checking the records—and I do think it would be more helpful if the committee would go by records; I would like to know what the records say; some of the records I find are not available to me; I believe they are in the custody of the committee. I have attempted through counsel in the last few days to have access to the records.

  MR. STRIPLING: Just a moment, Mr. Hiss. What records have you attempted to obtain which were in the custody of the committee?

  MR. HISS: I have attempted to obtain records of leases of premises where I was resident during the period in question. I have attempted to get the records with respect to the Ford automobile that I owned. I am informed that the records with respect to the latter in particular are not in their normal, official location but are in the custody of the committee.

  MR. STRIPLING: That is absolutely untrue. The committee has issued no subpoenas upon any realty company nor has it obtained any leases.

  It has subpoenaed a photostatic copy of a document from the Department of Motor Vehicles of the District of Columbia. However, the original document is still in the files.

  MR. HISS: I am told, Mr. Stripling, that the original document is no longer in the files. I tried to have my counsel have access to it

  MR. STRIPLING: When did you try to secure that document?

  MR. HISS: I will have to rely on counsel to say just when they tried.

  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be interesting to the committee to know from counsel when you tried to get this document.

  MR. DAVIS: A representative of mine tried to get this document yesterday afternoon, I am informed by the representative. I did not myself go to the Motor Vehicle Bureau. He was told that it was photostated at some time prior to yesterday but the document itself had been taken from its normal place yesterday.44

  MR. MUNDT: Who was that representative and who told him it was taken from the place and who took it from the place? Let’s get down to specific facts. If you were not told yourself, who was your representative?

  MR. DAVIS: I am sorry—I am not trying to be evasive—I do not know who the person was that went. I can ascertain who went to the Bureau to find out. I do not know.

  MR. MUNDT: You do not know who it was who told you that?

  MR. DAVIS: I do not know and I do not know that it was stated that the committee had taken the original. All I know is he was told the original had been removed from its normal place.

  MR. MUNDT: But you don’t know who told you that or who told the other man that. That is very vague from the standpoint of our committee, you understand.

  MR. DAVIS: I understand it is very vague. I do not know who it was. I can ascertain who it was during a recess.

  MR. MUNDT: Was he a member of your firm?

  MR. DAVIS: He was not a member of my firm.

  MR. NIXON: How did you find it out, then?

  MR. DAVIS: I was informed.

  MR. NIXON: By whom?

  MR. DAVIS: I was informed of this—

  MR. NIXON: It would be helpful to the committee if counsel would tell us how he received the information that these records were missing from their normal place. Who told him?

  MR. DAVIS: I would be very glad to.

  MR. NIXON: Yes.

  MR. DAVIS: I was told, as I recollect, by Mr. Fontaine Bradley, who is an attorney in Washington, and whom I had asked while I was in New York to make certain inquiries in Washington in respect to these matters.

  MR. MUNDT: Would you please identify the firm of which Mr. Fontaine Bradley is a member?

  MR. DAVIS: I believe that Mr. Bradley is a member of the Covington firm.45

  MR. NIXON: When did he tell you this?

  MR. DAVIS: He told me this last evening when I saw him when I finally got to Washington.

  MR. NIXON: Then you know this is the man who told you that, don’t you? You said “to the best of my recollection.” I mean, if he told you last evening, you certainly know if it was he or somebody else, don’t you?

  MR. DAVIS: I believe it was he.

  MR. NIXON: You believe. Did you have a conversation with him, Mr. Davis?

  MR. MUNDT: Mr. Chairman.

  THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mundt.

  MR. MUNDT: I would just like to register a protest at this continuous evasion on the part of these witnesses. I am getting tired of flying halfway across the country to get evasive answers. If the gentleman doesn’t know who told him, let him say, “I don’t know.” If he knows, let him say “I do know.” Let’s not say “I believe” or “I think.”

  MR. NIXON: I want counsel to take plenty of time to answer the question. I think the question is quite simple.

  Last evening somebody told him about these records. Now certainly you can remember who told you last night, Counsel.

  MR. DAVIS: Mr. Nixon, there were three people present at this time. There was Mr. Bradley, there was a partner of Mr. Bradley, and there was Mr. Hiss and myself, four persons present, as I remember, at the time of this conversation.46

  MR. NIXON: I see.

  MR. DAVIS: I think it was Mr. Fontaine Bradley who gave me this information.

  MR. NIXON: Who else could it have been?

  MR. DAVIS: It is possible it was his partner who was there who gave me the information, but I do not believe that was so.

  MR. NIXON: Then it definitely was Mr. Bradley or his partner who gave you the information?

  MR. DAVIS: That is to the best of my recollection, and I shouldn’t forget what happened last night.

  MR. NIXON: Certainly. This conversation you had wasn’t a telephone conversation?

  MR. DAVIS: It was a person-to-person conversation.

  MR. NIXON: Just what did he tell you?

  MR. DAVIS: He told me, as I have just stated, that inquiries—and my memory is not certain whether he said the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, or what the bureau is, the official bureau where you go with respect to getting the certificates of title—inquiry had been made, I think not by him, but by some agent that he sent, to see if we could examine that certificate, and that he ascertained that the certificate itself had been photostated by the committee, I believe, at some prior time, but that the certificate itself had been removed from its customary place and was not available for inspection by our agent at the time we were there.

  MR. NIXON: Thank you very mu
ch, Counsel.

  This long exchange has bearing upon two points. From the beginning of the Case, Alger Hiss was surrounded by expert legal talent, sometimes acknowledged, sometimes unacknowledged. Soon his affairs were handled by a battery of counsel. Meanwhile, he posed as a poor young man without resources, presumably in contrast to the affluent editor of Time. That line was presently discarded, in part because it was soon common knowledge that Chambers was not affluent, but more importantly, because the Hiss war chest was presently swelled by tens of thousands of dollars from sources, sometimes identified and sometimes unidentified.

  Both these points were about to be underlined by the sudden intrusion into the hearing of a hitherto unknown figure, whose permanent and important role in the Hiss Case has never been fully noted. Says the official transcript: “At this point, an unknown person confers with Mr. Davis.” The “unknown person” was a short, dark man. As he whispered over Mr. Davis’ shoulder, he kept his dull but watchful eyes fixed on the Committee, with somewhat the expression of a small boy who wonders if he is going to be caught with his hand in the cookie jar but decides to risk it. He was challenged.

  THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Counsel; will you please identify the man who came up?

  MR. DAVIS: The man who came up is Mr. Harold Rosenwald.

  MR. MUNDT: A little further identification, please. Is he counsel?

  MR. DAVIS: He is a practicing lawyer in New York City.

  MR. MUNDT: His address and the name of his firm?

  MR. ROSENWALD: 55 Liberty Street, New York City. The firm is Oseas, Pepper & Segal, O-s-e-a-s, Pepper & Segal. I am employed by them.