MR. NIXON: That was in the spring of 1935?
MR. HISS: My best recollection is that the car and the apartment transactions were simultaneous. That I cannot be sure of without checking the records more thoroughly.
MR. NIXON: Well, there were facts, as I recall, just checking through the record, 18 occasions in which you were asked the specific question, specifically about this on Monday and Tuesday in the record, as to whether you had given him the car, sold him the car, threw it in, given him the title, and as to whether it was part of the apartment deal, and in each case you said, “Yes,” and at that time, you did not qualify your answers with “to the best of my recollection.”
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon—excuse me.
MR. NIXON: Proceed; I am sorry.
MR. HISS: It is my recollection that on the 16th and on the 17th I informed the committee that I had not been able to check my records.
MR. NIXON: On the leases.
MR. HISS: At one point I said to the committee that for them to ask me questions about various personal details of long ago did not seem to me entirely fair to me, because of the various leaks that had been occurring with respect to supposed secret testimony. I said that in spite of those reservations, if the committee wanted me to testify as to the best of my recollection, unsupported by records, I would, of course, do so, and I remember Mr. Hébert particularly spoke up and said he did want me to, and so did you, and I said, on that understanding of what I had said, made no difference to the committee, they still wanted me to testify, and on the basis of recollection, after all these years, I was perfectly prepared to testify. I think the record would show that, Mr. Nixon, and I am glad the entire record is going to be made generally available to the public and not just excerpts, which, in the past, have somehow reached the press, and which today are being put in out of context by Mr. Stripling.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss, in that connection, I think the record should show that you requested and have received, a full copy of your testimony that you have given before this committee, both in public and in executive session; is that correct?
MR. HISS: May I answer that question by saying it was a long, hard pull to get that testimony....49
MR. NIXON: Well, the point is, Mr. Hiss, that you got the testimony, didn’t you, and you have had it for 5 days?
MR. HISS: I have had the testimony since Friday afternoon.
MR. NIXON: All the testimony that you have given before the committee.
MR. HISS: That is correct.
MR. NIXON: That is correct. Now, returning to the automobile, did you give Crosley a car?
MR. HISS: I gave Crosley, according to my best recollection—
MR. NIXON: Well, now, just a moment on that point. I do not want to interrupt you on that “to the best of my recollection,” but you certainly can testify, “Yes” or “No” as to whether you gave Crosley a car. How many cars have you given away in your life, Mr. Hiss? (Laughter.) That is a serious question.
MR. HISS: I have only had one old car of a financial value of $25 in my life. That is the car that I let Crosley have the use of.
MR. NIXON: This was a car that had a certain sentimental meaning to you, I think you said.
MR. HISS: And that is why I had not been prepared previously to accept merely $25 for it.
MR. NIXON: That is right.
MR. HISS: I was more interested in having it used than in merely getting $25 for it.
MR. NIXON: And this car, which had a sentimental value to you, was the only car you ever gave away in your life?
MR. HISS: It is not only the only car that I ever gave away in my life, it is the only car of that kind that I have described that I ever had.
MR. NIXON: I see. And you cannot recall whether or not you did give Crosley that car?
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, according to my best recollection I definitely gave Crosley the use of the car, as I was able to give him the use of my apartment.
MR. MUNDT: May I interrupt just a minute? On page 53 of these hearings which took place in New York, at which I was not present, the last 2 days, I, too, have read all of the testimony in this whole case, and you were asked the question “What kind of automobile did that fellow have,” the man you called Crosley, and you said, “No kind of automobile. I sold him an automobile.”
Now, Mr. Hiss, I am trying to get at the truth of this, and I wish you would make a statement and stand by it. Once you say, “I sold him an automobile, period.” Now, you come here and say “I gave him the use of the car,” and then you say “I cannot tell whether or not after he had the car he gave it back to me or not.”
Well, now, in 1934 and 1935 we were in a depression; automobiles were not so numerous and so plentiful that a Government employee would forget what happened to the cars that he had in his possession. You certainly know whether or not you gave Crosley an automobile; you know whether or not Crosley gave that car back, and we want the truth, that is all.
MR. HISS: Mr. Mundt, I am as interested in getting at the truth of this matter as any member of this committee can be, and I shall do all I possibly can, whatever it costs me, within my means, to get at the truth.
MR. MUNDT: Then, tell us the truth.
MR. HISS: Now, what is the nature of your question? Will you repeat it, please, because I paid more attention to the embellishments—
MR. MUNDT: Did you not testify in New York under oath to the effect that “I sold him—Crosley—an automobile?” I find it here in the printed testimony which we are now releasing to the public at the request of the committee, and it is your request....
MR. HISS: What is the specific question? The embellishments to your question made more impression on me than the question.
MR. MUNDT: There are no embellishments, and I ask you: Did you testify under oath in New York—
MR. HISS: I certainly did.
MR. MUNDT: As follows: “What kind of automobile did that fellow have?” Pointing at Crosley. And you said, “No kind of automobile. I sold him an automobile.” Did you say that or not?
MR. HISS: If the record says I said it—
MR. MUNDT: The record says that.
MR. HISS: I do not challenge the record.
MR. MUNDT: Your counsel can look at page 53; there it is, it is in the record.
MR. HISS: Mr. Mundt, there may be one or two inaccuracies in the record which we will have to correct.
MR. MUNDT: Is that an inaccuracy?
MR. HISS: That is not an inaccuracy in the record. I have complete confidence in Mr. Banister as a reporter.
MR. MUNDT: You also know whether or not Mr. Crosley gave you back the automobile you sold him. You said this car had a good sentimental value to you, you had kept it a long time. You certainly know, and we know that you know, whether you got that car back. We want you to tell us the truth, that is all.
MR. HISS: You know a great deal, Mr. Mundt.
MR. MUNDT: It is very hard to know very much about this evasive type of testimony, but I am trying to get at the truth.
Congressman Nixon then read into the record all of Hiss’s past testimony with respect to turning the Ford roadster over to me, and summarized it.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Chairman, those are the references to the car, and there are these points that I think are significant:In the first place, we note that Mr. Hiss not only once but at least twice used the word “sold” in referring to the car.
In the second place, we note that there was discussion concerning a title, a transfer of title. A transfer of title on a car is a matter which is discussed when you are selling a car to another person, and transferring it rather than a case where you are loaning the car to another person; and Mr. Hiss discussed the transfer of title along that line.
Mr. Hiss, throughout this testimony, used the words “get rid of” and he used the words “threw it in,” and in answer to a question concerning the words “You gave him the car,” his answers were as the record has been read.
Now, I have read those portions from the re
cord because I think that Mr. Hiss is entitled to have the entire record on the car read in at this point, and I wanted the committee to know what the references were.
I will say for myself that I am amazed to hear Mr. Hiss say this morning that he can only now testify to the best of his recollection as to whether he ever gave Crosley a car at all, that he is not sure as to whether or not he transferred the car to Crosley, that he might have given it to him for his use only, and that he is not even sure when the transaction occurred, and I think Mr. Hiss should be given every opportunity to explain just what his recollection was as to this car at the present time, and if he wants to change his testimony, that he change it, and tell us exactly what did happen to that car.
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, I am surprised if not amazed that you said just now that I testified this morning that I could not remember whether I had ever let Mr. Crosley have the use of my car. I don’t think I did so testify, Mr. Nixon.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss, since you have raised that point, you will recall that when I asked you, did you give Crosley a car, you said: “Mr. Nixon, to the best of my recollection, I did.”
MR. HISS: Right.
MR. NIXON: And I said:
“Mr. Hiss, certainly on this point, you need not qualify your answer with the words ‘to the best of my recollection.’ If you gave him a car, you gave him a car, and you should be able to give a categorical answer to the question.”
Now, I ask you again, just so that the record will be clear, did you give Crosley a car? And if you can answer the question, “Yes” or “No,” I think the committee would be glad to get the answer. MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, it is evident that the committee has had access to far more record information than I have had.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss, do you have to have records in order to know whether or not you gave a car away, the only car you ever gave away in your life?
MR. HISS: No; Mr. Nixon, I have testified, and I repeat my testimony, that my best recollection—and to have an exact recollection of trivial housekeeping details of 14 years ago, when I was a very busy man, doing more important things than these matters you are asking me to testify to about this morning, and I have been a relatively busy man since, it does not seem to me, being as objective as I can about it, that it is unusual for a man to preface his statements about the details by which he gave the use of a car, under the circumstances I have described, to a man who meant nothing in particular to him by the words “to the best of my recollection.” Now, I do think the committee has had access to more records. It has had a fuller staff than I ....
MR. NIXON: My point on the car is, is your testimony now that you gave Crosley a car, or is it that you did not give him a car?
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, my testimony, I believe from the beginning, based upon the best recollection I have, is that I gave Crosley the use of the car, as I gave him the use of the apartment. Now, whether I transferred title to him in a legal, formal sense, whether he returned the car to me in connection with my upbraiding him for not having repaid various small loans, and the loans stick in my memory as of more significance than the rental of the house itself, because that rental did not involve anything that I was going to get from any other source in any event, a couple of months left over, a couple of months in the summertime, for an apartment in Washington—that was not a very great financial asset in those days.
MR. NIXON: Well, now, is your testimony this morning then that you did not give Crosley the car, that you gave him the use of the car?
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, I have testified, and I repeat it, that my best recollection is that I gave Crosley the use of the car. Whether I gave him the car outright, whether the car came back, I don’t know.
MR. NIXON: You do not know whether you had the possession of this car after Crosley left you?
MR. HISS: That, I am afraid, I cannot recall. I do recall having a Plymouth and a Ford at the same time for some months, not just a few days. I do recall the Ford sitting around because it was not being used, the tires going down because it was just sitting on the street.
MR. NIXON: In fact, you have testified that that is the reason you gave Crosley the car, because you did have the two cars.
MR. HISS: I testified that that was the reason, I believe, the car was of no financial consideration to me, Mr. Nixon, during the period we are talking about.
MR. NIXON: Yes, Mr. Hiss. You will recall I had just read the testimony where you said “I gave Crosley the car because I had a new one.”
MR. HISS: That is my best recollection.
MR. NIXON: In other words, this transaction in which you gave this car to Crosley occurred after you got your new car, is that correct?
MR. HISS: That is my recollection, Mr. Nixon. Whether my recollection is accurate or not, I frankly do not know without consulting records which are not available to me.
MR. NIXON: Now, is your testimony then that you did give Crosley the use of the car?
MR. HISS: That is my testimony, Mr. Nixon.
MR. NIXON: On that point you are sure?
MR. HISS: As sure as I can be of any of these details of 14 years ago, Mr. Nixon.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss—
MR. HISS: Have you ever had occasion to have people ask you continuously and over and over again what you did on the night of June 5, 1934 or 1935? It is a novel experience to me, Mr. Nixon.
MR. NIXON: Mr. Hiss, I will answer the question. I will tell you this: That if I had given anybody the use of a car for a period of 2 months, I would remember.
MR. HISS: Well, I have testified to you that I do recall that.
MR. NIXON: All right. Now, your testimony is that you did give Crosley the car for a period of 2 months. When did that occur?
MR. HISS: My best recollection is that it coincided with the sublease. I am not positive that it occurred then, rather than in the fall or some other time.
MR. NIXON: And you do not know whether it occurred at the time of the sublease or in connection with that transaction?
MR. HISS: My recollection is that it occurred because it is fixed in my memory in a rather vague way as connected with the lease. Whether it preceded or followed or was simultaneous, I am afraid I am not able to testify with exactness.
MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Chairman—
MR. NIXON: Just a moment Mr. Hiss, it is not likely that you would have given the car to Crosley after he failed to pay the rent, is it?
MR. HISS: I do not recall the details of when I concluded he was a fourflusher.
MR. NIXON: Well, now, you have testified that he went—
MR. HISS: It was sometime—not after this.
MR. NIXON: Your testimony was that you had seen Mr. Crosley after he failed to pay the rent.
MR. HISS: Yes; I feel quite confident I saw him some time after the sublease transaction.
MR. NIXON: Now, do I understand you to say that you might have loaned Crosley a car for a couple of months after he failed to pay the rent?
MR. HISS: I might have, if I had considered that his reasons for not paying were as plausible as his reasons had been for not paying back small loans, because the rent was not a major consideration in my mind. Of that I feel quite confident.
MR. NIXON: When were the small loans made?
MR. HISS: Again, Mr. Nixon, I am testifying from the best of my recollection, which I have certainly in the course of the last few days done my very best to go over and over again. I think I loaned Crosley a total, in small amounts, of $25 or $30. Whether they were made prior to the sublease, some of them after the sublease, I just frankly do not recall with exactness. But at some stage I reached the conclusion that this had better be terminated, that I was being used, that my kindness was being abused.
MR. NIXON: And your testimony then is that the car—that you are not sure that the car was tied in to the rental transaction; you think it might not have been.
MR. HISS: It could have been tied in toward the end, it could have been tied in toward the beginning. My best recollection is that
there is a connection between the two transactions.
MR. NIXON: Could it have taken place several months after the rental transaction?
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, it could have.
MR. NIXON: You mean several months after he had refused to pay the rent?
MR. HISS: After he failed to pay the rent.
MR. NIXON: Well, didn’t you ask him for the rent?
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, I don’t recall at any time his ever refusing, ever saying, “I just am not going to pay.” Quite the contrary, he was always going to pay at some time.
MR. NIXON: How long after he moved out of his apartment did you decide he was a dead beat?
MR. HISS: Mr. Nixon, I am not able to testify with exactness on that.
MR. NIXON: But you think it is possible that you loaned him a car or gave him a car after he failed to pay the rent?
MR. HISS: I may very well have given him the use of the car even though he had not paid the rent at that particular time.
MR. NIXON: And your testimony is that this man was simply a casual acquaintance.
MR. HISS: This man was an acquaintance. Under the circumstances this man was an acquaintance, under the circumstances to which I have testified.
MR. NIXON: You said he was not a guest in your home. You objected when Mr. Stripling used that phrase.
MR. HISS: That is correct.
MR. NIXON: You objected when there was any suggestion that Mr. Crosley was a friend of yours, and you are now testifying that it is possible that you gave him a car after he failed to pay the rent.
MR. HISS: Yes, Mr. Nixon.
MR. NIXON: All right.
MR. MUNDT: Mr. Chairman, I think we can resolve this matter of a car by a very simple question, and I want to say, first of all, that it is certainly inconceivable, Mr. Hiss, that you would not know some of the details of this automobile in the manner in which you have described it. You have described it as a car that was purchased about the time of your marriage, that you had a sentimental value connected with it, that, I say, is understandable. You say that it had been around for a considerable period of time, and you no longer had a need for it because you had another automobile, and so you either sold or gave or loaned the automobile to the man that you identify as Mr. Crosley. Now, that is a correct summation, I believe, of your position up to now.
Witness Page 80
