Evening star. [volume], December 14, 1951, Page A-7, Image 7

About Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
Security Propers Find 'Reasonable Doubt' in Diplomat's Record
His Work in China
And Accuracy of
Predictions Noted
. (Continued From Page A-6.)
reaffirm the opinion expressed in
our memorandum of March 3,1950,
in which we said:
*‘It is evident that as a result
of his official visit to the Com
munist headquarters at Yenan
and from other sources. Mr.
Service believed that the Com
munists were putting up a more
effective fight against the Japa
nese that the Nationalists, and
that the Communists should be
helped. This view was shared
by other observers, and it ap
pears to have been Service’s
honest opinion. That he held
and reported such opinion is, in
the judgment of this panel, no
reflection upon his loyalty. Fur
thermore, it was a part of his
duty to confer with the Com
munists and report upon what
he found and his conclusions
as to what should be done. It
should also be noted that there
are many reports from those fa
miliar with Mr. Service’s work
which are highly commenda
tory.”
Concerning the employe’s con
duct in other respects while on
assignement in China, we have in
the file no sufficient evidence to
support a doubt on the question
of loyalty. There is, however, tes
timony of Patrick J. Hurley before
the Armed Services Committee of
the United States Senate at hear
ings held in June, 1951, indicating
that the employe may have given
I a Chinese Communist official a
copy of his report of October 10,
1944, to Gen. Stilwell, entitled
"The Need for Greater Realism in
our Relations with Chiang Kai
shek.” This is the report known
as Service’s Report No. 40. This
testimony was not available to us
at the time of our hearing, and
the employe was not examined
upon it. We, therefore, make no
finding with respect to this ques
tion but make note of it as a sub
ject worthy of inquiry should there
be further proceedings in this case
A review of the entire file, in
cluding the testimony at the hear
ing before the State Department
board, also satisfies us that no
reasonable doubt concerning the
employe’s loyalty arises from his
activities w'hile assigned to the
staff of General MacArthur in
Tokyo.
There is no evidence in the file
that the employe was ever a mem
ber of the Communist Party or
of any other organization on the
Attorney General’s list.
ueaungg with Jaffe.
There remains for consideration
the employe’s dealings with Philip
C. Jaffe of New York, the editorj
of Amerasia, and with others after!
his return from China on April
12, 1945. and up to the time of his
arrest in connection with the
Amerasia case on June 6. 1945. In
this connection reference is made
to the following provision of Ex
ecutive Order 9835:
“Part V—Standards:
“2. Activities and associations
of an applicant or employe
which may be considered in con
nection with the determination
of disloyalty may include one or
more of the following ....
“d. Intentional, unauthorized
disclosure to any person, under
circumstances which may indi- j
cate disloyalty to the United
States, of documents or infor
mation of a confidential or non
public character obtained by
the person making the disclo
sure as a result of his employ
ment by the Government of the
United States.”
There is no evidence that the
employe stole or abstracted from
the official files and transmitted
to Jaffe or any other person any
official files. Such files found in
Jaffe’s possession appear to have
come from Emmanuel S. Larsen.
Andrew Roth, or some other
source. It was on this charge that
the Grand Jury in the so-called
Amerasia case found no bill
against Service. It is not disputed,
however, that Service did inten
tionally lend for a period of time
to Jaffe from 8 to 19 copies which
he had retained in his files of his
reports made during his official
visits to the Communist head
quarters in Yenan during 1944 and
1945, and that he orally gave Jaffe
considerable information con
cerning what he had learned
while on Government service in
China and that these reports and
some of this information was of
a confidential or non-public
character.
The practice oi giving out in
formation appears to have been
somewhat loose, but It is clear
there was, at least to some extent,
a breach of State Department
regulations. The only question re
maining is whether these disclos
ures were of such a character or
were made under such circum
stances as to lead to the con
clusion that there is reasonable
doubt concerning the employee’s
loyalty to the Government of the
United States. We shall now ad
dress ourselves to that question.
The employe left Yenan on
April 8 and arrived in Washing
ton from China on April 12, 1945,
bringing with him his file copies
of his Yenan reports for 1944 and
1945 and also originals for the
State Department of some of his
1945 reports. The others had been
distributed by him through chan
nels while in China. These State
Department copies he says he de
livered at the State Department
shortly after his arrival, and
there is no evidence to controvert
this. He appears to have spent
the first week after his arrival in
Washington reporting to various
officials in line of his duty.
On April 19, a week after his
arrival from China, Service re
ceived a telephone call from Lt.
Andrew Roth of the Navy Depart
ment, whom he had met in 1944 at
a meeting of the Institute of Pa
cific Relations, inviting him to
dinner. Later, Roth called and
said that he had also invited
Philip Jaffe, who was staying at
tha Statler in Washington, and
fr
WHEN COWPOKES MEET—Hollywood.—Terry Wayne Ellis, 7,
of Helena, Mont., who’s been adopted by the crew of the Cruiser
Helena, gets acquainted with Roy Rogers, his favorite movie
cowboy. The binoculars are a gift to Terry from Rogers. Sail
ors of the Helena last week presented Terry, who suffers from
a severe physical handicap, with a $6,500 trust fund.
—AP Wirephoto.
suggested that Service call and
pick Jaffe up. Service according
ly called up Jaffe and arranged
to meet him at Jaffe’s room in the
hotel. Service testified that he
had never before met Jaffe, but
knew of him as editor of Amerasia,
and, believing that he would be
interested, brought with him to
Jaffe’s room his file copy of a re
port of an interview he had had
in Yenan in the spring of 1945
with Mao Tse-tung, the Com
munist leader.
There is information in the
file indicating that Service had
met Jaffe in China some years
previously, and had transmitted
information to Jaffe from China.
We find no corroboration of this.
And it appears from FBI reports
that Service and Jaffe, in their
telephone conversation arranged
to meet in Jaffe’s room because
if they were to meet in the lobby
they might not recognize each
other.
Supplied Other Reports.
Service allowed Jaffe to retain
the copy of the Mao interview
and Jaffe expressed an interest
in Service's other reports and it
was arranged that they would
neet again in Jaffe's room at the
Statler on the morning of the
20th. Pursuant to this appoint
ment Service the next morning
nought a number of his reports
(which in his testimony before
:he State Department board he
’laimed were specially selected
as being of such nature that they
night be divulged) and left them
with Jaffe. Service then re
turned for lunch with Jaffe and
Lt. Roth in Jaffe's room at the
hotel, and Jaffe said that he
wanted more time to read the
reports and would like ^to take
them to New York, to which Serv
ice assented. Service testified
that he lent Jaffe 8 or 10 of
his reports. The information in
the file indicates that Jaffe may
have received from Service as
many as 19.
on April 25. service called on
Jaffe at the Amerasia office in
New York, and picked up the
reports. As he kept no record
of what reports he had lent to
Jaffe and made no check of those
which were returned, we have no
accurate information as to how
many and what reports Service in
fact lent to Jaffe. While in New
York on the 24th and 25th of
April, Service stayed at the apart
ment of Mark Gayn, a free-lance
writer on Far Eastern subjects
whom he had met for the first
time on April 18 and who had
been a college mate of his brother,
and on the evening of the 24th
he attended a party at Gayn’s
apartment at which Mr. and Mrs.
Jaffe, Kate Mitchell and others
were present.
Service met Jaffe again in
Washington at Jaffe’s room in the
Statler on May 8, and on May
29 picked up Jaffe at the Statler
and attended with him and others
a farewell party for Lt. Roth.
He also met Jaffe in New York
on a week-end party of Mr. and
Mrs. T. A. Bisson on May 19 and
20. There is no evidence that
Service passed any copies of re
ports to Jaffe at any meetings
subsequent to those of April
19 and 20, but there is infor
mation in the file indicating that
on May 8 and 29 at Jaffe's room
in the Statler Service continued
to talk freely with Jaffe, as h<2
had on the 19th and 20th of April,
and this notwithstanding the fact
that at these first meetings Serv
ice felt that Jaffe was unpleasantly
;inquisitive and insistent and that
: after leaving the meeting of April
! 20 with Lt. Roth, Service asked
Roth if Jaffe was a Communist,
Ito which Roth replied that he
did not think he was a Commu
nist, but that he was extremely
sympathetic.
It was also nothwithstanding
the fact that on April 25 in New
York one Harold Isaacs, known
to Service to be a former Com
munist, in response to an inquiry
made by Service told Service that
Jaffe was "bad business” or "b**i
medicine,” and that while on the;
week-end party with the Bissons
on May 19 and 20 J&ffe in con-1
versation with Service took what
appeared to Service to be the
"party line” by telling Service
that “they had real freedom of
the press in Russia, that they
did not have real freedom of the
press here.”
Service concedes that he should
not have lent copies of his reports
to Jaffe, but in extenuation he says'
that so far as he then knew Jaffe
was a reputable journalist, and
that giving what he called “back
ground” information to reputable
journalists had been encouraged
by his superiors. The testimony of
others indicates, however, that
background briefing seldom went
to the extent of showing reports,
much less lending them or giving
them out. And Brooks Atkinson,
in a letter submitted to the State
Department board on behalf of
Service, says: “My only complaint
as a reporter was that Mr. Service
was too punctilous about State De
partment security and declined to
tell me everything he knew. He
never permitted me to see classi
fied material and was cautious and '
guarded about matters he con
sidered confidential.” This con
trasts strangely with the very dif-i
ferent treatment accorded by Serv-1
ice to Jaffe. Indeed. Service frank-1
ly stated that he placed no re- 1
striction on the use which Jaffe [
might make of the reports which
he lent to him.
Service conceded that in no
event should reports which had
passed throught headquarters and
to w^hich were attached letters 6f
transmittal or comments be
handed out. A number of such re
ports were found among Jaffe’s
papers, but the evidence indicates:
that none of them came from ,
Service.
Some Reports Copied.
Copies of reports which Service
did lend or may have lent Jaffe,
were also found among Jaffe's pa
pers. It appears that one Annel
H. C. Blumenthal copied a num-1
ber of reports for Jaffe, and if]
seems probable that some or all of
those lent by Service to Jaffe
were among these.
We have examined the 18 re
ports, copies of which Service
concedes were or may have been
lent by him to Jaffe. Some of
these are not classified; others
are classified “secret” or “con
fidential.” Service testified, and
the evidence indicates, that these
were his own classifications and
that, in many cases at least, be
fore he showed them to Jaffe by
reason of lapse of time or other
wise they were no longer secret or
confidential.
From our examination of these
reports, it appears to us that they
were, for the most part, such as a
newspaper reporter on the spot
might transmit to his newspaper.
Some of them, however, appear to
us to be of a nature which no dis
creet person would disseminate
without express authority, and
some of them were dated within
four to six weeks of the time they
were lent to Jaffe, and the origi
nals had not been in the hands of
the State Department for more
than a week. These recent re
ports, therefore, might be con
sidered as “hot news.”
We have no knowledge of what
information Service may have im
parted to Jaffe and others orally
during these meetings in New
York, or during the evening
parties he went to with Jaffe and
others in Washington on April j
Early Student of Sherwood To Attend Building Rites
Mrs. Robert H. Miller, sr„ of
Sandy Spring, Md. who was a
member of the first class of the
old Friends’ School there in 1885,
will turn the first spadeful of
earth for an eight-room addition
to Sherwood High School at 3:30
p.m. tomorrow aftrenoon.
When Friends’ School became
Sherwood Public School in 1906,
the first graduating class had two
members, both of whom will be
present tomorrow.
They are Miss Dorothy Wether
aid, retired Philadelphia teacher,
and Mrs. Raymond Havens. Mr.
and Mrs. Havens moved to Sandy
Springs from Boston last year.
Roger J. Whiteford, Washing
ton and Montgomery County at
torney. who was first principal of
Sherwood School, also will be
present. Members of the Mont
gomery County Board of Educa
tion, Dr. Edwin W. Broome, sup
erintendent, and Richard E. Car
penter, assistant superintendent
of schools, will attend.
n
19 and May 29. We do. however,'
have some information concerning
Service’s conversations with Jaffe
in Jaffe’s room at the Statler in
Washington on April 19th and
20th and May 8th and 29th. These
indicate that there was some con
viviality, and that Service talkad
very freely, discussing, among
other things, troop dispositions
and military plans which he slid
he had seen and which he said
were “very secret.”
This intimacy of talk appears
to have continued unabated,
though from the first Service felt
that Jaffe was unduly inquisitive
and evidently suspected that Jaffe
might be a Communist, having
after the meeting of April 20th,
asked Lieut. Roth whether Jaffe
was a Communist, to which Roth
replied that he did not believe
Jaffe was a Communist but that
he was extremely sympathetic.
Superiors Not Consulted.
It also continued after Isaacs
had told Service on April 25 that
Jaffe was "bad business’ or “bad
medicine,” and after Jaffe had on
May 19 or 20 taken the “party
line” in conversation with Serv
ice. At no time did Service con
sult his superiors as to the extent
to which he might properly give
Jaffe information.
What have we that gives ground
for reasonable doubt as to Serv
ice’s loyalty? With some necessary
repetition of what has preceded,
the grounds, as we see then\ are
these:
He knew very early in his as
sociation with Jaffe that Jaffe was
a very doubtful character, ex
tremely left-wing, as Service said
in his testimony before us. He
was asked before us, “What made
you think he might be a Com
munist?” The answer was, "I
don’t remember anything specific.
It was fairly obvious from talking
to him, and his general approach,
that he was extremely left-wing.
He was a much more uncritical
booster of the Chinese Com
munists than I was. At some point
fairly early, he mentioned his
interest and participation in some
thing like Russian relief.”
His counsel urged, in his ex
cellent brief, that Service had
mentioned Jaffe to several of his
friends and colleagues, and that
none of the persons of whom
these inquiries were made—Vin
cent Friedman. Isaacs, or Salis
bury—gave any indication that
laffe was a Communist or an im
proper person to associate with
His statement is not entirely ac
curate, but it scarcely helps Serv
ice.
Service was a highly trusted
official of his Department, of long
ind wide experience in his par
ticular field. The statements made
ay him. quoted above, show that
10 such warning was necessary.
He knew almost from the start of
bis relations with Jaffe of Jaffe's
true character. To this man he
?ave, as we have stated, a large
number of his reports. His story is
that there were eight or ten of
them which he gave to Jaffe. Jaffe
is reported by the FBI. said Serv
ce gave him 19. Giving these re
sorts was against the State De
lartment's regulations, as Service
cnew. It is true that, as we have
said, these regulations were ap
narently not always strictly ob
served, and how many of these
•eports Service really furnished
laffe is a matter of considerable
ioubt.
Step by step, as Service con
tinued in his association with
Jaffe, Service had a continuing
line of warnings as to Jaffe's
:haracter. We begin on April 20,
ifter Service had delivered his re
ports to Jaffe. He asked Roth if
Jaffe were a Communist, and Roth
.aid he was not a Communist, but
i left-winger and very sympa
hetic. Later, when Service came
,o New York on April 24 and 25.
:wo things which should have been
i warning occurred.
He said he was very much an
noyed at finding that Jaffe had
urned over Services reports to
3ayn for use. It has been pre
viously noted that Service had put
io restrictions on the use to which
Jaffe might put these reports. He
bad, he says, simply assumed that
Jaffe would treat them as report
wedding ring ensem
ble, chosen from our
wide and varied col
lection. Priced from
$85.00
CHARGE OR BUDGET ACCOUNTS
919 F St. N.W. |
X
ers might use them for background
information.
In New York, he saw his friend,
Isaacs, who said Jaffe was "bad
medicine.” Isaacs had been a
Communist himself, and “bad
medicine,” used by an ox-Com
munist, should, we think, have
fyad some special significance to
Service. Later, at Bisson’s party
on May 19, Jaffe, as quoted above,
takes what Service himself called
“the Communist line” in saying
that there was more freedom of
the press in Russia than in this
country.
Disliked Jaffe as Person.
Service also says that he soon
disliked Jaffe as a person—that
he was aggressive and nosey. Yet.
notwithstanding what Service
knew about Jaffe as a Communist
sympathizer, and notwithstand
ing this stated dislike of him as a
person, we find in the conversa
tions between Jaffe and Service at
the former’s hotel room in the
Statler, as reported by the FBI.,
no indication of any caution by
Service in the continuous line of
answers he made to Jaffa's
“nosey” inquiries on State De
partment matters. If Jaffe was
nosey, he rarely failed to get from
Service what he asked for, punc
tuated at one time, at least, by
the statement, “This is very se
cret.” Service undertook to get
documents for Jaffe in the De
partment. Quite irrespective of
whether these documents could
properly be made available to
Jaffe, the question we ask our
selves is. “Why should Service do
I
it for a man he says he disliked
and whom he knew to be very
!much of a left-winger and. as
Service’s own statements indicate,
whom he suspected of being a
Communist?”
1 The evidence of Jaffe’s truei
character was, we think, built up
with every contact Service had
with him. and yet his last long
conversation with Jaffe on May
29 shows Service telling Jaffe
matters which we think a reason
ably decent person in Service’s
position of trust should have hesi
Itated to disclose even to a friend
I in whose character he had com
plete faith. The contrast between
his treatment of Jaffe and his
treatment of Brooks Atkinson, an
accredited representative of the
New York Times, as reported by
the latter and previously quoted
herein, requires no comment.
To say that his course of con
duct does not raise a reasonable;
doubt as to Service’s own loyalty
would, we are forced to think,
stretch the mantle of charity
much too far.
We are not required to find
Service guilty of disloyalty, and
we do not do so; but for an
experienced and trusted repre
;senatative of our State Depart
ment to so far forget his duty to
his trust as his conduct with Jaffe
so clearly indicates, forces us with
1 great regret to conclude that j
there is reasonable doubt as to his i
loyalty. The favorable finding of j
the Loyalty Security Board of
the Department of State is ac
cordingly reversed.
U. N. Bent on Accord
With Soviet in Arms
Talks, Jessup Says
By Ihc Associated Press
PARIS, Dec. 14.—United States
Ambassador Philip C. Jessup told
the United Nations Political Com
mittee today the Western powers;
will open disarmament negotia
tions with Russia “with the fixed
desire and hope that they will re
sult in agreement.”
Explaining the revised Western
disarmament proposals, Dr. Jessup
said it was obvious that funda
mental differences remained be
tween the Soviet Union and the
West.
“We do not blink at the diffi
culties,” he declared, "but the task
of disarmament is vital and we
intend to get on with that task.”
Negotiations would take place
in a new disarmament commission
the West wants to set up under
the terms of the revised British
French-American resolution which
Dr. Jessup formally introduced
today.
Differs Widely on Methods.
Russia and the Big Three have
agreed in principle on setting up
such a commission but still differ
almost completely on how to go
further about disarming.
“It is in the spirit of widening
the areas of agreement that we
submit our revised draft,” Dr.
Jessup said, pointing out that the
new resolution makes numerous
concessions to demands put forth
by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei
Y. Vishinsky during the secret
Big Four talks last week.
Dr. Jessup added, however,
that basic East-West differences
still exist—the West insists that
disarmament must be gradual,
step by step, closely supervised
throughout, and culminating in
prohibition of the atomic bomb;
the Soviet Union,demands an im
mediate ban on tfie bomb and one
third reduction in armed tforces
by the major powers.
One-Sided Plan Denied.
The concessions advanced to
day, many of them changes in
wording of the original resolution,
include setting June 1, 1952, as
the date for the proposed com
mission to report and guide the
commission in planning for an
international control organ to su
pervise the dsarmament process.
“We do not propose a program
of disarmament in which the ben
efits will be on any one side,” Dr.
Jessup declared. "We propose a
program in which the people of
the Soviet Union will be as much
a beneficiary as all other peoples.
We seek no advantage, save that
of sharing in the general increase
in security and the liberation of
vast new energies and resources
for world economic develop
ment. . . .
“In the new commission the
work of negotiations must con
tinue. . . . Speaking for the three
sponsors (Britain, France and the
United States*, I can say we shall
enter those negotiations with the
fixed desre and hope that they
will result in agreement.”
THE MODE: Important Men'* Corner
l
TODAY AND SATURDAY
AT BOTH MODES
our greatest
suit sale
this season
USUALLY $65 AND $70
9.75
• Pure Worsted FLANNELS in medium or dark gray.
• Pure Worsted PIN STRIPES in blues and grays.
• Pure Worsted GABARDINES in brown, natural, blue.
• Pure Worsted SHARKSKINS in exclusive weaves.
-—and practically anything else you want!
It is a rare sale that brings you suits like these at 49.75.
Every fabric is an all wool worsted. Every pattern and
color is a current bestseller. You will be able to find exactly
what you want because selections are complete and out
standing in every model and size. Regulars, longs and
shorts.
McGREGOR
Candle-Glo-Sheen
Sportshirt
—one of the finest
8.95
The collar Is trimmed with
hand tied French Knots,
jacket shoulders, taped
seams, sleek rayon yoke,
color - harmonized trim
mings and the finest of
ocean pearl buttons. The
supple rayon fabric ha.'J a
rich glow, washes beauti
fully. S, M, ML, L.
Hand-Turned
Leather Slippers
by Evans
and Danvers
5.50 c 7.95
If he sees either of these two dis
tinguished names on his slippers,
he’ll know you gave him the best.
Both Evans and Danvers are
widely known for the excellence
of their leathers and hand
turned construction. Blue, brown,
burgundy.
I — — — — ,
CHRISTMAS STORE HOURS
j
I F St. Mode: Doily 9 to 7; Thursdoys 9 to 9 i
Connecticut Ave. Mode: Daily 10 to 9
F ST. AT ELEVENTH . . . Hour* 9:00 to 7:00
3331 CONNECTICUT AVE. . . . Hour« 10:00 to 9:00 1
[CHARGE IT: 30-Day or Tri-Ptao
X