Witness

by Whittaker Chambers

  MR. HISS: It sounds to me quite correct.

  MR. MUNDT: And I want to ask you this question, and on this one, Mr. Hiss, you will not have to consult the records, and I certainly hope that you will not have to use the phrase “to the best of my recollection,” which you have used over 75 times thus far before this committee. This one you should be able to say yes or no to. Did you ever dispose of that 1929 automobile to anybody else in any way besides to Mr. George Crosley?

  MR. HISS: Mr. Mundt, I would hate to disappoint you in any expectation.

  MR. MUNDT: You have already done that, but answer the question.

  MR. HISS: I am not able, without consulting the records, to testify with exactness or finality as to the way in which I ultimately completely disposed of my interest in that automobile.

  MR. MUNDT: You have no memory at all of having disposed of the car in any other way except by this series of three possibilities by which you conveyed it to Mr. Crosley? Would you like to have this committee believe, Mr. Hiss, actually believe, that you cannot remember how you finally disposed of an automobile that had such a sentimental attachment to you, and which meant something to you?

  MR. HISS: Mr. Mundt, I have already testified that my recollection is that I let Crosley have the use of it; I may have let him have complete disposition. He may be the person who disposed of it.

  MR. MUNDT: Yes; just a moment; may I interrupt you? As a matter of fact, whether you gave it to him or loaned it to him or made it part of the—a material part of the lease—unless you had let him make final disposition of it, you certainly would know what you had done with the car after that.

  MR. HISS: If the car came back to me, if he returned the car to me, and I later disposed of it—

  MR. MUNDT: You would know of it.

  MR. HISS: I do not have a recollection of what I did.

  MR. MUNDT: But you would have a recollection of it, of having it back.

  MR. HISS: I would like to have an opportunity to consult the records, and I have been attempting to consult the records, and they are not available to me, Mr. Mundt....

  MR. MUNDT: But you need no aids to your memory on a matter like that automobile. On your leases I can understand, and your address I can understand. From the standpoint of disposing of an automobile of that type you certainly would stretch the credulity of this committee if you would have us believe that you have no memory at all of what happened to this automobile.

  MR. HISS: I am not an expert on the credulity of this committee.

  Then Robert Stripling read into the record the clarifying point about the car questions—my original testimony as to what Hiss had done with the car, given prior to any of his own testimony covering the same points. Could my testimony have been read at the beginning of the hearing, the logic of the drama would have been easier to follow. But in the nature of such an interrogation, it could not precede, it had to follow the questions based on it. So ably had the Committee organized this hearing that my testimony was timed to touch off one of the climaxes of the hearing, a climax that was about to be reached through the words of Louis J. Russell.

  MR. STRIPLING: ... In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I should like now to refer to the testimony of Whittaker Chambers, which he gave on August 7th in New York City in the Federal Building.

  “MR. NIXON: Did they have a car?—” referring to Mr. and Mrs. Alger Hiss.

  “MR. CHAMBERS: Yes; they did. When I first knew them they had a car. Again I am reasonably sure, I am almost certain it was a Ford, and that it was a roadster. It was black, and it was very dilapidated. There is no question about that. I remember very clearly that it had hand windshield wipers. I remember that because I drove it one rainy day and had to work those windshield wipers by hand.

  “MR. NIXON: Do you recall any other car?

  “MR. CHAMBERS: It seems to me in 1936 probably he got a new Plymouth.

  “MR. NIXON: Do you recall its type?

  “MR. CHAMBERS: It was a sedan, a two-seated car.

  “MR. MANDEL: What did he do with the old car?

  “MR. CHAMBERS: The Communist Party had in Washington a service station; that is the man in charge or owner of this station was a Communist, or it may have been a car lot.

  “MR. NIXON: But the owner was a Communist?

  “MR. CHAMBERS: The owner was a Communist. I never knew who he was or where he was. It was against all the rules of the underground organization for Hiss to do anything with his old car but trade it in, and I think this investigation has proved how right the Communists are in such matters, but Hiss insisted that he wanted that car turned over to the open party so it could be of use to some poor organizer in the West or somewhere. Much against my better judgment, and much against Peters’ better judgment, he finally got us to permit him to do this thing. Peters knew where this lot was and he either took Hiss there or he gave Hiss the address, and Hiss went there, and to the best of my recollection of his description of that happening, he left the car there and simply went away, and the man in charge of the station took care of the rest of it for him. I should think the records of that transfer would be traceable.

  “MR. NIXON: Where was that?

  “MR. CHAMBERS: In Washington, D.C., I believe; certainly somewhere in the District.”

  Now, Mr. Chairman, I have here a certificate of title, a photostatic copy of a certificate of title, District of Columbia, Director of Vehicles and Traffic. It shows that on July 23, 1936, Alger Hiss assigned the title of this car to the Cherner Motor Co., and I now ask that Mr. Hiss step aside, and that Mr. Russell take the stand.

  XXX

  One fact should be made quite clear. The information that J. Peters had given me about Alger Hiss’s car transaction with the open Communist Party had misled me on one point, as no doubt Peters had intended that it should. The owners of the Cherner Motor Company, Washington’s big used car dealers, were not Communists or in any way privy to what occurred in their car lot on the night of July 23, 1936—a whole year after the period when, to the best of his recollection, Alger Hiss claimed to have given his Ford roadster to George Crosley. An employe, who was a Communist or a Communist sympathizer, was the agent in the procedure which the Committee’s assistant chief investigator was about to describe—a transaction so extraordinary as to spell out for anybody with any experience of such matters the warning: Communists at work.

  MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Russell, I hand you a photostatic copy of an assignment of title, as recorded in the District of Columbia, and ask you to give the committee details of your investigation regarding this sale and assignment of title (handing photostatic copy of document to witness).

  MR. RUSSELL: The space on the back of the document called the certificate of title of a motor vehicle, as issued by the Director of Vehicles and Traffic for the District of Columbia, reflects that on July 23, 1936, one Alger Hiss sold to the Cherner Motor Co. of 1781 Florida Avenue, NW., a motor vehicle.

  MR. STRIPLING: Mr. Russell, is there any evidence that he sold the motor vehicle, on the face of that?

  MR. RUSSELL: On the face, under the section which reads as follows : “The motor vehicle described on the reverse side of this certificate, and the undersigned hereby warrants that the title to the said motor vehicle, and certifies that at the time of delivery the same is subject to the following liens or encumbrances and none other.”

  Under that, in typewriting, is the word “None.” There is no indication as to the amount of money involved in the transaction.

  MR. STRIPLING: Now, did you proceed to the Cherner Motor Co. with a subpoena, and examine their records and subpoena all of their sales records for this date?

  MR. RUSSELL: I did.

  MR. STRIPLING: Do you have those records with you?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes.

  MR. STRIPLING: Is there any evidence of a sale on that date from the records that we have obtained?

  MR. RUSSELL: In the records which we obtained, which were the only ones available, there is no evidence that a sa
le or the subsequent sale of a 1929 Ford roadster was made by the Cherner Motor Co. on that date.

  MR. STRIPLING: Now, just a moment. Going back to the assignment of title, does the photostatic document reflect that the car was sold or assigned on the same date that Mr. Hiss turned it in to the Cherner Motor Co.?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes; the reassignment of title reflects that on July 23, 1936, which is the same date that the car was turned over to Chemer Motor Co., by Mr. Hiss, that one William Rosen, of 5405 Thirteenth Street, NW., was the purchaser of the same motor vehicle involved for the amount—the amount is not given. However, it states, or there is a statement on this document, that there was a chattel mortgage of $25.

  MR. STRIPLING: Did you go to the address listed there, 5405 Thirteenth Street, NW.?

  MR. RUSSELL: No; but investigators attached to my division did.

  MR. STRIPLING: Who were the investigators?

  MR. RUSSELL: Mr. William A. Wheeler and Mr. Benjamin Mandel and Mrs. Howard also visited that address.

  MR. STRIPLING: Did any person by the name of William Rosen reside at that address during 1936?

  MR. RUSSELL: No.

  MR. STRIPLING: Was there any record of a William Rosen having resided at that address?

  MR. RUSSELL: No.

  MR. NIXON: Who was the—who resides at that address at the present time?

  MR. RUSSELL: Mrs. Howard would have to mention that. I am not familiar with the persons presently residing there.

  MR. NIXON: You do not have the information as to that?

  MR. RUSSELL: No; Mrs. Howard has that.

  MR. NIXON: But what your record shows, I understand, Mr. Russell, is that this car was transferred by Mr. Hiss on what date?

  MR. RUSSELL: July 23, 1936.

  MR. NIXON: That is a year after the transfer to Chambers is supposed to have taken place?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes.

  MR. NIXON: Is that in the handwriting of Mr. Hiss?

  MR. RUSSELL: According to an identification of certain handwriting specimens consisting of the known handwriting of Mr. Hiss on the questioned document which is this assignment of title, the handwriting experts have testified that the signature appearing on the back of this document, called assignment of title, was written by Alger Hiss.

  MR. STRIPLING: Here is the report of the handwriting experts at this time.

  MR. NIXON: Is it true also that the words “Cherner Motor Co.,” had been written in by Mr. Hiss, or are in the same handwriting?

  MR. RUSSELL: Whether the handwriting examination shows that, I do not know. I do not believe that it does.

  MR. NIXON: Mr. Stripling, you have information on that fact?

  MR. STRIPLING: We have not made a determination on that point. I want to ask Mr. Hiss.

  MR. NIXON: I see. Do the files of the Committee on Un-American Activities or the files which you have consulted disclose any information concerning the William Rosen who gave this address?

  MR. STRIPLING: There are two William Rosens. This committee is now checking. We find no William Rosen who ever resided at that address. There are two Rosens. We are checking one in California and the other in Detroit. We are not prepared at this time to state definitely concerning these two William Rosens.

  Could I clear up one point, Mr. Nixon?

  MR. NIXON: Yes.

  MR. STRIPLING: Now, Mr. Russell, you have the sales slips of the Cherner Motor Co. for the date on which this car was sold to William Rosen.

  MR. RUSSELL: I have.

  MR. STRIPLING: Do you have the slips for the day before?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes.

  MR. STRIPLING: And the following day?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes.

  MR. STRIPLING: Would you explain to the committee the numbering system of those sales slips, and tell them whether or not the sales slips, as contained there in the files which were subpoenaed, reflect that this car was sold to William Rosen.

  MR. RUSSELL: These sales invoices are numbered in consecutive order. The last sales invoice for the date July 21, 1936, bore the number 7879.

  The first sales invoice for the following day, which was the day before the transaction was recorded on the assignment of title, begins with the number 7880, and ends with the number 7897. There were no invoices missing on that day.

  On the following day, July 23, 1936, the date of the transaction, the number was 7898. The last invoice on that date was 7908, and on the following day, July 24, 1936, the invoices begin with the number 7909, and end with number 7923.

  If you follow the numbers in consecutive order from the last number of July 2 through July 24, 1936, you will find that there are no sales invoices missing, which indicates that no sales invoice for the sale of this automobile to William Rosen was made out by the Cherner Motor Co. on the day before the sale was recorded on the assignment of title, on the day that the sale was recorded, on the assignment of title, nor on the day following the assignment of title, which was July 24, 1936.

  MR. STRIPLING: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think this point should be an occasion for Mr. Nixon, who is chairman of a subcommittee, to state clearly for the record the investigation to this point regarding the Cherner Motor Co.

  Yesterday Mr. Cherner, who is head of the motor company, was before the committee, as well as the treasurer, and the vice president in charge of used cars, I believe—three officials of the Chemer Motor Co., who were before the committee. There is no evidence at this time that any of these three officials or that the Chemer Motor Co. might have been a party to any such transaction. It is very possible that a person who was with the Chemer Motor Co. at that time is involved. We expect to have something on that later in the day.

  MR. NIXON: Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee yesterday heard Mr. Cherner, of the Cherner Motor Co., and Mr. Mensh, who was the sales manager of the Cherner Motor Co., at the time this transaction occurred. Both witnesses testified at length. Their testimony will, of course, be made public, and I want to say for the record that, as far as both of them were concerned, they had no recollection whatever of this particular transaction, and that, as far as the investigation of the sub-committee is concerned, there is no implication at all that they were involved in the transaction from the basis of their testimony. I want that to be made absolutely clear, because the record of their testimony, which will be made public, will bear out what I have just said.

  Do I understand, first of all, that you do have the records of the Cherner Motor Co. for the day of that particular transaction?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

  MR. NIXON: And you find nothing in those records at all bearing on this transaction?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir.

  MR. NIXON: You have searched the records carefully to see whether possibly the invoice might have been misplaced?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir. The invoices are numbered in consecutive order; and if you take the day before the transaction occurred, and find that number and trace that through, and the following day, and then take the first invoice for the day after the transaction, you will find that those numbers are in consecutive order, so there could not be a sales invoice for that day missing.

  MR. NIXON: I see. And as far as Mr. William Rosen is concerned, the investigations of your staff have shown that the address that he gave was an address which the occupants of the home at that time deny was his at that time?

  MR. RUSSELL: Yes, sir; that is true.

  MR. NIXON: That is all I have at this time.

  MR. STRIPLING: I ask that Mr. Hiss be recalled.

  THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hébert.

  MR. HÉBERT: I just want to ask one clarifying question.

  In other words, this transfer of title which the Cherner Motor Co. supposedly gave to the man Rosen does not appear officially at all in their files or in their invoices?

  MR. RUSSELL: That is right.

  MR. HÉBERT: Am I to understand also, then, that if such a transaction did take place as reflected by this document from which you read, that it was a cover-up sale?


  MR. STRIPLING: No.

  MR. HÉBERT: In other words, what I am trying to clarify, Mr.

  Stripling, is what connection has the fact—what does it establish, that these invoices are consecutively numbered, and then, you have a missing invoice of a sale which is supposed to have taken place, and that one missing invoice relates to the car sold. MR. STRIPLING: There is not a missing invoice.

  MR. HÉBERT: There is not a missing invoice?

  MR. RUSSELL: No.

  MR. STRIPLING: The point we are making is that Mr. Hiss, according to this document, delivered the Ford automobile to the Cherner Motor Co. on July 23, 1936. On that same date the car was sold or transferred to one William Rosen, but there is no evidence in the sales records of this particular transaction.

  MR. HÉBERT: It was an unusual case.

  MR. STRIPLING: I believe that the officials—one of the officials of the Cherner Motor Co.—testified yesterday that it was a very unusual case.

  To make what happened perfectly clear to those unversed in techniques of conspiracy, perhaps it is best to bear in mind the purpose of the unusual transaction. Hiss’s insistence on turning his old car over to the Communist Party had faced J. Peters with this problem: how to obliterate as far as possible the documentary link, which the transfer of title of an automobile must make between the underground Communist Party and the open Communist Party. He solved the problem in this way: he had Hiss assign title to the roadster, not directly to a Communist, but to a neutral and unsuspecting third party—the Cherner Motor Company. Peters was able to do this because he had a Communist Party member or sympathizer planted at Cherner’s.

  To this man, Hiss personally turned over the roadster. On the certificate of transfer Hiss himself wrote in as recipient: the Cherner Motor Company. That is without question: the handwriting and notarized signature with date are certified to be Alger Hiss’s. Thus, on the face of the record, Hiss sold the car to the Cherner Motor Company, and in the ordinary course of events the deception would never have been discovered.