MR. HISS: Mr. Chairman, since the committee seems to be very much interested in counsel for giving me any kind of assistance, may I just state that not being a man of considerable means, I have been much gratified by the volunteer assistance of friends, many of whom not unnaturally are lawyers.47 Mr. Rosenwald, who has just been identified, is a graduate of the same law school that I am (Harvard Law School). I knew him also in practice in Boston, and have kept in touch with him since. He has been voluntarily assisting me in attempting to get records and similar materials. Mr. Davis, who is with me today, is also a personal friend of some standing, some long standing. I have had some difficulty with respect to continuity of counsel. The first adviser I had, Mr. William Marbury, an old friend in Baltimore, who accompanied me to the other hearing on August 5, was sent within a week or within 10 days, to London by the Government on important business. I have been doing the best I could to get such assistance of a voluntary nature as I possibly could. I think it may be appropriate to put that in, since the committee seems to be very much interested in who are helping....
THE CHAIRMAN: I will say this for the committee. We are very much interested in hearing what you have to say.
This congressional appearance of Mr. Rosenwald was my first glimpse, and practically everybody else’s, of that shyly enigmatic figure, who was next to turn up, just as unexpectedly, as a silent member of counsel in Hiss’s libel suit against me, who was to be very busy at the defense table in both Hiss trials, and even busier questioning anybody at all who might know Whittaker Chambers. In fact, Rosenwald seemed to be the master spirit of the investigatory side of the Hiss defense. But no inquiry ever shed much light on Rosenwald. During the Hiss Case, one or two articles about him appeared in the press. He was described as a loyal and self-effacing friend who had generously resigned his job to devote his full time to Alger Hiss’s cause.
It was the lot of this generous and unassuming friend to be possessed of a manner and a face at once thought-provoking and cryptic. It was, to echo Alger Hiss’s phrase, “definitely not an unfamiliar face. There was a certain familiarity about it.” I had seen dozens much like it in my time. Perhaps the clue to its familiar type must be sought among the only hard facts I ever heard mentioned about Harold Rosenwald. He had worked for the Department of Justice, where he had been the assistant to Mr. O. John Rogge, an assistant to the Attorney General. The peculiar vehemence of Mr. Rogge’s leftist views finally caused him to leave the Justice Department. He is now the legal representative of the Tito Government
XXVIII
The questions shifted to the leases of Hiss’s 28th Street apartment and his P Street house in Georgetown. The importance of this line of questioning had little to do with the leases themselves or with the fact that they would prove that my recollection of the length of my stay at 28th Street was in error by a few weeks and Hiss’s recollection was in error by several months. The questions about the leases bore importantly on the 1929 Ford roadster. Two points were involved: 1) if, as was soon clear, I had left the apartment at latest in July, 1935, and had seen Hiss only a few times thereafter, under what circumstances had the Ford, which Hiss had testified to giving me, come back into his possession? 2) did Hiss, as he had also testified, own two cars at the time I was in the apartment? No one could have realized better than Hiss how dangerous those two points were to him.
He did not improve his case by testifying that he had destroyed his leases due to “a certain contraction of possessions,” meanwhile complaining that he had been unable to procure the pertinent information. The Committee promptly proved that it was readily available by reading it into the record. And this despite the fact that Hiss had already testified to the assistance of at least three partners of the powerful Covington firm, and the indefatigable Harold Rosenwald, and would soon apologize for not mentioning the names of others who were helping him in his unfruitful efforts. At the same time, the Committee had only three overworked investigators while its editorial and research staff were doubling in the investigation.
MR. NIXON: I understood you to say that you thought the committee should check the leases and also I thought I understood you to say that you had not yet checked the leases yourself. I wanted to be sure I heard you correctly.
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, I have not checked the leases myself. I thought I had the leases in my papers in New York.
MR. NIXON: You so testified.
MR. HISS: I said on the 16th I thought they were there. I have now looked in my apartment in New York, and I must have got rid of the leases when I moved from the house into an apartment which meant a certain contraction of possessions. I did get rid of a good many old papers at that time, and apparently the leases were among them. So it has meant going back, first, remembering the real-estate agents I dealt with, and, second, going back to the real-estate agents to find out from them what the actual terms and dates of the leases were. I was asked on the 16th and on the 17th a good many questions by members of the committee and I think by Mr. Stripling as to where I lived at various times. I was not even able to recall the street correctly. To the best of my recollection, I testified that I lived on Twenty-ninth Street. I have now ascertained that it was Twenty-eighth Street. My reference to the leases was that I could not after all these years be expected to remember with accuracy and to be really helpful to the committee in its presumed search for truth and the complete truth unless I did have the opportunity to consult records. But I also told the committee that I was not in any sense going to be evasive. I hope the acting chairman’s reference to evasiveness was not in any remote sense an implied reference to me. I went forward, Mr. Nixon, and said, testifying simply on recollection of rather trivial housekeeping details of 14 years ago, I would tell you the best I could recall, and so I did.
MR. NIXON: Then, the point is that you have not checked the leases as of this morning?
MR. HISS: I still have not been able to get hold of all the leases. (Only two were in question.) Some of the leases have been consulted, there have been some telephone conversations with the real-estate people. I have asked counsel to prepare as rapidly as possible a collection of all the available record evidence—photostats, originals, or copies—of all the record evidence on these matters, which it is apparent the committee considers of importance. That has not been completed yet.
MR. NIXON: That is all.
MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Hiss, do you have the lease between you and Mr. Crosley?
MR. HISS: I have never testified that there was any lease between me and Mr. Crosley. I said that it was an oral arrangement; a sublease orally arranged.
MR. STRIPLING: Now, you gave the committee the circumstances under which you met Mr. Crosley. Could you give us the date, the approximate date?
MR. HISS: Again, my best recollection would be—and this is a reconstructed memory trying to recall when I did various things with the Nye committee. I have not even been able to get the list of all the staff of the Nye committee, for example. I would think it must have been either in the late winter of 1934 or the early winter of 1935.
MR. STRIPLING: At this point, I would like to read from your testimony which you gave on August 16. He then read the particular part of Hiss’s testimony as it appears in Chapter XVI of this section of this book.
MR. STRIPLING: Now, is that as you recall it, Mr. Hiss?
MR. HISS: That was the best recollection I had on the day I testified and that is why I so testified. I have since learned that my lease on the house began earlier than I thought and my lease on the apartment terminated somewhat earlier than I thought. The overlap which I remembered, and which was the main thing in my memory, was, according to the best records I have so far been able to check, accurate.
MR. STRIPLING: When did you first move into the P Street house?
MR. HISS: Mr. Stripling, I really think the best way for this committee to get full facts is to go to records, if possible. I have said that several times in these hearings.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr.
Witness.
MR. HISS: I have not been able yet to get—and I will furnish it to the committee as soon as I get it—the actual records of when I took the lease on the P Street house and when I moved into the P Street house.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hiss, we appreciate your suggestions as to how to conduct these hearings, but if you do not mind, and if the committee does not mind, we have certain questions we would like to proceed with.
MR. HISS: Certainly.
THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Stripling.
MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to read into the record a letter from Sandoz, Inc., real estate and insurance, dated August 20, 1948, from Teresa B. Mileham, who signed herself as a bookkeeper, addressed to Robert E. Stripling, Chief Investigator:
My Dear Mr. Stripling: This is to certify that our records show that we rented 2905 P Street NW., to Priscilla Hiss for 1 year from May 1, 1935, to June 15, 1936, at a monthly rental of $105. Very truly yours.”
Does that refresh your recollection on that at all, Mr. Hiss?
MR. HISS: Mr. Stripling, I would have thought in view of information I have received as to the date during which my tenancy of the apartment on Twenty-eighth Street lasted, that I must have moved into the P Street house a little earlier than the date just read, which I understood to be May 1. (Mr. Stripling hands letter to Mr. Hiss.)
MR. HISS: (continuing): And again I would like to check all possible records to see whether I moved in before the date of the lease, according to their records, which is sometimes the custom, to be given a month or so in addition to your regular lease, earlier or later, at the beginning preceding the lease or after its termination; so that again I can’t testify with any exactness without an opportunity to refresh my recollection by trying to refer to various records which are not easy to get hold of after all this lapse of time.
MR. STRIPLING: Now I believe you testified earlier, Mr. Hiss, that you sublet your apartment on Twenty-eighth Street—that was apartment 42, at 2831 Twenty-eighth NW.,—to George Crosley. Is that correct?
MR. HISS: I did so testify and I did so sublet.
MR. STRIPLING: When did you sublet this apartment to George Crosley?
MR. HISS: My recollection had been that it was at the beginning of the summer. Whether it was a little earlier or a little later than that I couldn’t be sure—and again I would want to have access to all the records possible in order to be as accurate as possible.
THE CHAIRMAN: What year?
MR. HISS: What year did what happen?
THE CHAIRMAN: The summer of what year?
MR. STRIPLING: That you sublet the apartment.
MR. HISS: The summer of 1935.
MR. STRIPLING: What was the agreement regarding this apartment between you and Mr. Crosley?
MR. HISS: According to my best recollection, the agreement was that of a simple informal sublease at the cost to me, the privilege of his occupying the premises as long as I had disposition of them, and it has been my recollection from Monday, the 16th of this month, on that I did have the disposition of that apartment or could assure the disposition of that apartment over a period of several months after I moved into 2905 P Street.
MR. STRIPLING: Do you recall just when your lease for the apartment expired?
MR. HISS: No; I do not.
MR. STRIPLING: How long did Mr. Crosley remain in the apartment? Before you answer that, I believe you testified on August 16 on page 52, you were asked by Mr. Nixon: “Can you state again just when he first rented the apartment?” referring to Mr. Crosley. You say “I think it was about June of 1935.” Do you recall whether or not it was June?
MR. HISS: My best recollection at the time I testified was it was about June. Whether it was a little earlier or a little later after 14 years or so, I am afraid I just am not able to recall.
MR. STRIPLING: Do you recall how long he remained at the apartment?
MR. HISS: I have no idea. My recollection is that he was entitled, as far as I was concerned, to remain for several months and that I was in a position to assure him that he could remain for several months. Whether he did or not would be no concern of mine.
MR. STRIPLING: At this point, then, Mr. Chairman, I should like to read into the record a letter from Randall H. Hagner & Co.. real estate, 1321 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. The letter is addressed to Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator of the Committee on Un-American Activities, and signed by Mary Petherbridge. The letter reads:
“Dear Mr. Stripling: Our records show that Alger Hiss made application to us through the manager, Mrs. W. M. Jeffers. on May 29, 1934, for apartment 42, 2831 Twenty-eighth Street NW. His tenancy began on July 1, 1934, for 1 year. We assume from the application that a lease was made. However, our old leases have been destroyed. Mr. Hiss vacated on June 28, 1935. His previous address given at that time was 3411 O Street NW. The number of occupants was listed as two adults and one child. This apartment was vacant for the month of July. On August 1, 1935, it was rented to W. E. Isemann.
Very truly yours.
MR. HISS: May I say it is apparent that the committee has been better staffed with people to inquire into records than I have been. May I also say with reference to my earlier statement about the assistance of friends, that I did not mean to exclude any friends who have been helpful by not mentioning their names....
MR. NIXON: I think that from the testimony Mr. Hiss has given and from the documents Mr. Stripling has presented that it is very clear as to what these terminal dates for this lease were. As I understand it, Mr. Hiss’ lease on the house he moved to on P Street started on May 1; is that correct?
MR. STRIPLING: That is correct.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss has suggested he might have moved into that house before, that as a courtesy he might have received a month or so free rent before he moved into the house, but the lease as far as the records show—he first had his rental contract on his new house on May 1. You have also indicated that the apartment which he sublet to Mr. Crosley was rerented to a new tenant, not Mr. Crosley, commencing August 1. Is that correct?
MR. STRIPLING: That is correct.
MR. NIXON: Now, when did Mr. Hiss’ lease on the apartment run out? Have you put that matter into the record yet?
MR. STRIPLING: That is in the record. It expired on the 28th of June.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss’ lease on the apartment expired on the 28th of June?
MR. STRIPLING: That is right.
MR. NIXON: In other words, the amount of time for which his sublease could have run would be approximately from May 1 to June 28. That was the period at which Mr. Hiss had the disposal of the apartment and in which he could have been in the new house. Is that correct?
MR. STRIPLING: That is what it appears from the records.
MR. HISS: Is that a question to me or to Mr. Stripling?
MR. NIXON: I am making the statement. If you have objection to the statement, you are perfectly welcome to make it.
MR. HISS: The only thing I would like to say, Mr. Nixon, first, in general there seems to me to be relatively little disagreement as between the testimony of Mr. Chambers as he now calls himself and me with respect to the period and the circumstances of our acquaintance ... The important issues, the important charges are not questions of leases, but questions of whether I was a Communist, and it was to try to get the issues raised that are the real issues—it seems to be topsy-turvy to be talking only about leases, Mr. Nixon; in such a serious charge as this it seems to me we should be getting after the question of my record and what did people who worked closely and intimately with me think of me.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hiss, I would like to say again that the committee appreciates your suggestions as to how to conduct these hearings, but we do have certain questions to ask and, if you don’t mind, Mr. Nixon will continue questioning if he has any more questions.
MR. NIXON: Yes; I have. I would like to comment upon Mr. Hiss’ statement that the only issue in this hearing today is whether or
not Mr. Hiss was a Communist. The issue in this hearing today is whether or not Mr. Hiss or Mr. Chambers has committed perjury before this committee, as well as whether Mr. Hiss is a Communist.
Now, as far as these what are termed housekeeping details by Mr. Hiss are concerned, it isn’t the intention of the committee to hold Mr. Hiss to exact dates, it isn’t the intention of the committee to hold him to exact details on matters that happened years ago, but it certainly is the intention of the committee to question both Mr. Hiss and Mr. Chambers very closely on the matter of their acquaintanceship, because it is on that issue that the truth or falsity of the statements made by Mr. Hiss and Mr. Chambers will stand or fall.
MR. HISS: May I say, Mr. Nixon, that that does not seem to me a very rational basis for determining credibility. Obviously, the committee may ask the questions it chooses.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss, you are an attorney. I think you are aware probably of the standard instruction which is given to the jury on cases of credibility of witnesses. That instruction, as I recall it, is that if [in] any matter a witness is found to be telling an untruth on any question which is material and which is raised during the course of the court’s proceedings, his credibility on other questions is also suspect. Now, as far as this matter is concerned, you, yourself, have made an issue of the fact as to (1) whether you knew Chambers at all—that issue has now been resolved; and (2) how well you knew Chambers and whether you knew him as a Communist. That is the purpose of this questioning now. Now, I would appreciate it if you would again comment upon the matter of this lease. Do I understand that May 1 to June 28 would be approximately the length of the rental agreement with Mr. Crosley?
MR. HISS: May I refer back to what I said earlier this morning, that my recollection in terms of an impression about these events is that I considered that I had the disposition or could assure the disposition of the Twenty-eighth Street apartment for a period of several months. Whether my lease overlapped—whether my legal lease overlapped my moving into the P Street apartment by several months, or whether it was somewhat less than that, and I was aware that anyone who wanted to get the apartment month to month or any other way after my lease expired during the summer, whether that was part of my thinking at the time I frankly can’t tell in terms of details.
Witness Page 78
