◆ SpookStack

‘ I OBERT M. HITCHCOCK’S { testimony before the Tyd- ings committee must stimulate ' wonder as to what were the purposes of Francis Biddle, who ¥ attorney general when the Amerasia” case began, and hy Mr. Hitchcock and his as- ' sdciates acted as they did. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that a spy can go to the State and other depart- ments and sfeal 1,700 docu- ; ments, some of the most secret ‘ mature, and that nothing can be done about it if the agents of the OSS and the FBI entered the premises where the docu- ments were found without a search warrant. Yet, this question arises: The OSS raid occurred on March 11, 1945. Maybe no court case could be made out of that be- cause Frank B. Bielaski did not have a Search warrant. How- ever, the Biclaski seizures are not among the 1,700 documents we are now talking about. Those were seized by the FBI in June. Se oe ae ee SR Oo HY WAS it not possible for the Department of Justice to vet a search warrant between March and June? What held ,up due process of law in an es- Pionage case for three months? Let us go further. Mr. Hitch- cock testified: “The FBI, in connection with the arrest of Jaffe and Kate Mitchell at the Amerasia offices, had seized several hundred papers, many of which were clearly the property of one or more government agencies, most of them of the State de- partment. “Many others of the seized papers later were clearly estab- lished te be copies of similar records, The bulk of them were i Classified, as, far example, ré- _ stricted. confidential. secret, ete.” Maybe those documents could ‘not be used apainst Jaffe and Kate Mitchell, but they did invelye others among them Roth, Service and Larsen. Cet: tainly, once the Department of Justice saw tne documents, these others were involved. They could be held under the law for information gained in this manner. Similarly Hitchcock said: “In (Mark) Gayn's apart ment, when he was arrested, the FBI seized 60 items, of which 22 were federal com: munications commission = re ports or copies pertaining to in- terrogation of Japanese prison- ers of war. About 20 were type- written copies of State depart- ment papers, and 18 were cor- Yrespondence or papers which w ‘ ‘ Ere —wirorts persona % Man rere: { Ry (sco orge . 4-26 Tolaon © Ladd Clegg, Glavin Nichola Ctl Rosen Sokolsk KY Tracy. ' “Copies of some of the items Harbo ound in Gayn's apartment were found in the Amerasia of- Belmont fices. When Gayn was arrested, Mohr he made a statement that he knew some of the material Tele. Room__ Seized was not generally avail- able to the public. Neare “He said he intended using Gandy. it for background and no other teason. When he was asked where he got it, he said that in some instance he did not re- call, and that in others, as a reputable newspaperman he could not disclose the sources.” HAT, of course, raises a very curious issue. We, of the ‘hk press, hate to disciose con- / va * fidences, although many of us i! have learned to refuse to re- ceive confidences from certain types of politicians as involving Participation in matters a gen+ tleman should avoid. However, can a newspaper- man hold to the position in time of war that he has a right to be the recipient of files stolen or taken, whichever he chooses, from the government without personal responsibilitiy for their possession? Gayn finally admitted thut he received the FCC repor from the New York office of the OWI; that George Edwa?d Taylor and Elizabeth Downing (Barker. by marriage) gave them to him. NE of the major difficulties with Hitchcock's testimony is that the documents he testi- fied about do not describe ac- curately the 1.700 now in thea. possession of the Tydings com-t-: yn. mittee, some of which were disclosed by Senator Hicken- looper to Bert Andrews of the New York Herald Tribune. Did Hitchcock, as the pros- ecuting attorney, read the 1.- 700 documents or did he accent the word of Service, Jafie, Gayn, Mitchell and Roth con- cerning them? As these docu- ments are being published, the discrepancy between their ac- tual character and the attempt of Mr. Hitchcock to minimize them is startling. CCORDING to Mr. Hitch- cock, Kate Mitchell, when NOT RECORDED 45 FEB 1952 3 ee ee i Eye Page Times-Herald Foac S Ste Fo Lion ~ Wash. Post she was arrested, said “that she ' Wash. News __ knew the source of (some docu- tf y ments) but refused to divulge a4 , it. Later she told us and the Wash. Star grand jury that it was her ; understanding that Jaffe ob- ik Te - tained them from Larsen.” Mr. Hitehcock could have madé a case had he pursued it. The question of public concern N.Y. Mirror is: Why was the case not — pursued? (Copyright, 1950, hy King Features Byndicate, Inc , Date: 4-279