The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10: 30 a. m., in the caucus room, Old House Office Building, Hon. J. Parnell Thomas (chairman),presiding.
Committee members present: Representatives J. Parnen Thomas,Karl E. Mundt, ,John McDowell, Richard M. Nixon, Richard B. Vail,and F. Edward Hebert.
Staff members present: Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator; Louis J. Russell, William A. Wheeler, Donald T. Appen, investigators;Benjamin Mandel, director of research; and A. S. Poore, editor, for the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The meeting will come to order.
Take your seats, please, those who have seats.
The record win show that those present are Mr. Mundt, Mr. McDowell, Mr. Nixon, Mr. Vail, Mr. Hebert, and Mr. Thomas.
A quorum of the fun committee is present.
The Chair would like to make this short statement. On August 3 the committee received testimony from Whittaker Chambers regarding the operation within the Government of the Communist apparatus during the period 1934 to 1937. According to the testimony of Mr. Chambers, Mr. Alger Hiss was a member of this group, which had as its purpose Communist infiltration of the American Government, with espionage as one of its eventual objectives.

On August 5 the committee heard in open session Mr. Alger Hiss at his own request, who categorically denied the testimony and stated that he had never known an individual by the name of Whittaker Chambers and could not identify him as a person he had ever known by photographs which were shown him.

The committee in an effort to determine the facts promptly sent a subcommittee to New York and again called Whittaker Chambers, took his testimony in executive session in the Federal Building in New York City on August 7. Mr. Chambers was questioned at length regarding his associations with Mr. Hiss. He gave the committee such detailed information concerning his associations with Mr. Hiss and his family during the period in question that the committee came to the conclusion that it was impossible for the two persons not to have been closely associated.

Following this session, part of the staff of the committee was then detailed to corroborate, if possible, the testimony of Whittaker Chambers, which had been taken in New York City. As a result of this investigation, on August 16 the committee again brought before it Mr. Alger Hiss, who was questioned in executive session in Washington concerning the detailed testimony that Mr. Chambers had given in New York in executive session. During the course of this testi-
mony Mr. Hiss again failed to identify Whittaker Chambers from the photographs which .were shown to him. However, he did advise the committee that he had searched his mind and that he did recall an individual by the name of George Crosley, whom he had known during the period in question. He expressed some doubt, however, that this was the person known as Whittaker Chambers.

The following day, August 17, the committee brought about a confrontation at an executive session of the committee at the Commodore Hotel, New York City, between Alger Hiss and .Whittaker Chambers, at which time Mr. Hiss made the positive identification of Whittaker Chambers as an individual that he knew as George Crosley.

While the testimony of Whittaker Chambers is not directly involved in the two espionage rings which the committee has been investigating -namely, the Silvermaster and Perlo groups, as disclosed by ElIzabeth T. Bentley-nevertheless, because of the direct conflict in the testimony of Mr. Hiss and Mr. Chambers, the committee has continued its investigations and has subpenaed both of these witnesses to appear here in public session this morning in an effort to determine the true facts. As a result of this hearing, certainly one of these witnesses will be tried for perjury. The Congress and the American people are entitled to the truth on this important matter. These hearings will be fair
and impartial.

I should, therefore, like to caution the people present today that they are guests of the committee. We are glad to have as many representatives of the American public as is possible to crowd in this room today. I shall ask, therefore, that you conduct yourselves in an orderly manner and to refrain from any demonstration whatsoever, including applause.
I should like to say to the news reels and photographers that they are likewise welcome here, but they must not in any way interfere with the orderly procedure of the committee.
With this understanding, we shall proceed to call the first witness.
Mr. Stripling, the first witness.

Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Alger Hiss.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hiss, raise your right hand, please.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. HISS. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Sit down.

TESTIMONY OF ALGER HISS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, JOHN F. DAVIS

Mr. STRIPLING. Are you accompanied by counsel?
Mr. HISS. I am, Mr. Stripling. 
Mr. STRIPLING. Will you have your counsel identify himself?
Mr. DAVIS. My name is John F. Davis. I am a partner in the firm of Hilmer & Davis, with offices at 1700 I Street NW., Washington, D. C.
Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Hiss, you are here this morning in response to a subpena which was served upon you on August 17 at the Commodore Hotel in New York City; is that correct?
Mr. HISS. Mr. Stripling, as I told the subcommittee on that day, there was no need to serve a subpena on me. A subpena was handed to me. I had already told the committee I would be very glad to be here on August 25.
Mr. STRIPLING. You are here also in response to the subpena, however?
Mr. HISS. I received the subpena; yes, Mr. Stripling.
Mr. STRIPLING. You are here in response to it; is that correct?
Mr. HISS. To the extent that my coming here quite voluntarily after having received the subpena is in response to it; I would accept that statement.
Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a brief statement at this time.
Public Law 601 of the Seventy-ninth Congress, second session:
House Resolution 5 of the Eightieth Congress provides the authority for the Committee on Un-American Activities, United States House of Representatives.
Public Law 601 states:
The Committee on Un-American Activities as a whole or by subcommittee is authorized to make from time to time investigations of (i) the extent, character, and objects of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (ii) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle or the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (iii) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation.
     Pursuant to this mandate the committee has been conducting an investigation in the past several months into alleged Communist infiltration by Communist agents in the Federal Government and the operation within the Government of certain persons who were collecting information to be turned over to a foreign government. The hearing this morning is for the purpose of pursuing this investigation. Among the witnesses who have been subpenaed to appear this morning are Mr. Alger Hiss and Mr. Whittaker Chambers.
     All questions propounded to Mr. Hiss and Mr. Chambers or the other witnesses will be pertinent to the inquiry, and they shall be required to answer them.
    Mr. HISS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a question to the chairman if I might.
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hiss.
    Mr. HISS. May I be permitted to make an opening statement?
    The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hiss, is that opening statement the same as the letter you sent to me?
    Mr. HISS. I would like to read that letter into the record so that it is actually a part of the record in these proceedings.
     The CHAIRMAN. Is it the same as the letter?
     Mr. HISS. In part it is, but I have a few additional comments I would like to make in addition to reading--
     The CHAIRMAN. We have already read the letter in the newspapers.
     Mr. HISS. But it is not a part of the record of this proceeding, Mr. Chairman.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Chairman.
     The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Stripling.
     Mr. STRIPLING. May I suggest that we proceed with the questions and at the conclusion of the questions and answers the committee take
     Mr. Hiss' statement under advisement as to whether he should read it.
     The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Chairman, do I understand your ruling that I may not read the letter into the record?
     The CHAIRMAN. Not necessarily. You may not read the letter right at this point. Later on we will take under consideration whether or not the letter will be read.
     Mr. HISS. May I, Mr. Chairman, make the other part of the statement I desire to make at the outset of the meeting?
     The CHAIRMAN. Not at this point. Go ahead, Mr. Stripling.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Hiss, would you kindly stand up, please?
     Mr. Chambers, will you stand up?
     Mr. Hiss, have you ever seen this individual [Mr. Stripling points to Mr. Chambers.]
     The CHAIRMAN. Would you repeat the question, please?
     Mr. STRIPLING. Have you ever seen this individual who is standing?
     Mr. HISS. I have.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Do you know him?
     Mr. HISS. I identify him, Mr. Stripling.
     Mr. STRIPLING. As who?
     Mr. HISS. As George Crosley.
     Mr. STRIPLING. When did you know him as George Crosley?
     Mr. HISS. According to my best recollection-and I would like to repeat what I have said to the committee before, that I have not had the opportunity to consult records of the time-I first knew him sometime in the winter of 1934 or 1935.
     Mr. STRIPLING. When did you last see Mr. Crosley, as you have identified him ?
     Mr. HISS. Prefacing my answer with the same remarks I have just made, I would think sometime in 1935.
     Mr. STRIPLING. In 1935 was the last time you saw him?
     Mr. HISS. According to my best recollection, not having checked the records.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Would you remain standing a moment, Mr. Hiss?
     Mr. Chairman, would you swear in Mr. Chambers?
     The CHAIRMAN. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
     Mr. CHAMBERS. I do.

TESTIMONY OF WHITTAKER CHAMBERS

     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Chamber, do you know the individual who is now standing at the witness stand?
     Mr. CHAMBERS. I do.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Who is he?
     Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Alger Hiss.
     Mr. STRIPLING. When did you first meet Mr. Hiss?
     Mr. CHAMBERS. I think about 1934.
     Mr. STRIPLING. 1934?
     Mr. CHAMBERS. 1934.
     Mr. STRIPLING. When did you last see :Mr. Hiss?
     Mr. CHAMBERS. About 1938.
     Mr. STRIPLING. About 1938. Have a seat, Mr. Chambers. Sit     down, Mr. Hiss.
     Mr. Hiss, when you appeared before the committee on August 3, I think it was--

TESTIMONY OF ALGER HISS--Resumed

     Mr. HISS. I appeared on August 5, I think.
     Mr. STRIPLING. August 5-I am sorry-you were shown pictures of Mr. Whittaker Chambers.
     Mr. HISS. I was shown a photograph.
     Mr. STRIPLING. At that time you could not identify this individual from that photograph.
     Mr. HISS. That is correct.
     Mr. STRIPLING. When you appeared before the committee in executive session in Washington on August 16, you were again shown a picture of Mr. Whittaker Chambers.
     Mr. HISS. I think I was shown two pictures that day, according to my recollection.
     Mr. STRIPLING. You also failed at that time to identify Mr. Chambers as Mr. Crosley.
     Mr. HISS. I said that the pictures were definitely of a face that was not unfamiliar to me. There was a certain familiarity about it.
    Incidentally, Mr. Stripling is referring to certain testimony of mine taken in executive session, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if there is any reason why all of the testimony thus far taken in this case should not be made public. A good deal of it has reached the press by one means or another. There is a considerable amount of distortion and misunderstanding.
    I have no reason to want any of that testimony-mine or Mr. Chambers', which I have never seen-to remain secret. It seems to me the public and the press would like to have full access to all of the testimony that has been taken to this date.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the committee make all of the testimony public as or this moment.
     Mr. HISS. I think that would be a very good idea.
     Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that yesterday, in your absence, the members of the committee who were here decided that today we would make all the testimony available provided it was agreeable to the other members of the committee.
     Mr. HISS. I am very gratified.
     The CHAIRMAN. All right. Without objection, it will all be made public as of this moment.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Hiss, .would you relate to the committee the circumstances under which you first met the person you have identified that you knew as George Crosley?
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Stripling, I have already in an effort to be helpful to the committee when I came to the executive session on the 16th willingly in response to a request from the chairman given the best recollection that I have.
     As I said then, I have no opportunity to consult records. The connection between Crosley and Chambers did not enter my mind until Monday morning, the 16th, while I was on the way by train to the afternoon session. According to my best recollection, without checking the records-and I do think it would be more helpful if the committee would go by records; I would like to know what the records say; some of the records I find are not available to me; I believe they are in the custody of the committee. I have attempted through counsel in the last few days to have access to the records.
     Mr. STRIPLING. .Just a moment, Mr. Hiss. What records have you attempted to obtain which were in the custody of the committee?
     Mr. HISS. I have attempted to obtain records of leases of premises where I was resident during the period in question. I have attempted to get the records with respect to the Ford automobile that I owned. I am informed that the records with respect to the latter in particular are not in their normal, official location but are in the custody of the committee.
     Mr. STRIPLING. That is absolutely untrue. The committee has issued no subpenas upon any realty company nor has it obtained any leases.
    It has subpenaed a photostatic copy of a document from the Department of Motor Vehicles or the District or Columbia. However, the original document is still in the files.
     Mr. HISS. I am told, Mr. Stripling, that the original document is no longer in the files. I tried to have my counsel have access to it.
     Mr. STRIPLING. .When did you try to secure that document?
     Mr. HISS. I will have to rely on counsel to say just when they tried.
     The CHAIRMAN. It would be interesting to the committee to know from counsel when you tried to get this document.
     Mr. DAVIS. A representative of mine tried to get this document yesterday afternoon, I am informed by the representative. I did not myself go to the Motor Vehicle Bureau. He was told that it was photostated at some time prior to yesterday but the document itself
had been taken from its normal place yesterday.
     Mr. MUNDT. Who was that representative and who told him it was taken from the place and who took it from the place? Let's get down to specific facts. If you were not told yourself, who was your representative?
     Mr. DAVIS. I am sorry-I am not trying to be evasive-I do not know who the person was that went. I can ascertain who went to the Bureau to find out. I do not know.
     Mr. MUNDT. You do not know who it was who told you that?
     Mr. DAVIS. I do not know and I do not know that it was stated that the committee had taken the original. All I know is he was told the original had been removed from its normal place.
     Mr. MUNDT. But you don't know who told you that or who told the other man that. That is very vague from the standpoint of our committee, you understand.
     Mr. DAVIS. I understand it is very vague. I do not know who it was. I can ascertain who it was during a recess.
     Mr. MUNDT. Was he a member of your firm?
     Mr. DAVIS. He was not a member of my firm.
     Mr. NIXON. How did you find it out, then?
     Mr. DAVIS. I was informed.
     Mr. NIXON. By whom?
     Mr. DAVIS. I was informed of this--
     Mr. STRIPLING. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that counsel be sworn if he is going to testify. Perhaps it would be better if you were sworn.
     The CHAIRMAN. Stand and raise your right hand.
     Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
     Mr. DAVIS. I do.
     The CHAIRMAN. Sit down.
     Mr. NIXON. It would be helpful to the committee if counsel would tell us how he received the information that these records were missing from their normal place. Who told him?
      Mr. DAVIS. I would be very glad to.
     Mr. NIXON. Yes.
     Mr. DAVIS. I was told. as I recollect, by Mr. Fontaine Bradley, who is an attorney in Washington, and whom I had asked while I was in New York to make certain inquiries in Washington in respect to these matters.
     Mr. MUNDT. Would you please identify the firm of which Mr. Fontaine Bradley is a member?
     Mr. DAVIS. I believe that Mr. Bradley is a member of the Covington firm.
     Mr. NIXON. When did he tell you this?
     Mr. DAVIS. He told me this fast evening when I saw him when I finally got to Washington.
     Mr. NIXON. Then you know this is the man who told you that, don't you? You said "to the best of my recollection." I mean, if he told you last evening, you certainly know if it was he or somebody else, don't you ?
     Mr. DAVIS. I believe it was he.
     Mr. NIXON. You believe. Did you have a conversation with him, Mr. Davis?
     Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Chairman.
     The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mundt.
     Mr. MUNDT. I would just like to register a protest at this continuous evasion on the part of these witnesses. I am getting tired of flying half-way across the country to get evasive answers. If the gentleman doesn't know who told him, let him say, "I don't know." If he knows, let him say "I do know." Let's not say "I believe" or "I think."
     The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nixon, you have the questioning, so you may proceed with the questioning.
     Mr. NIXON. I want counsel to take plenty of time to answer the question. I think the question is quite simple.
    Last evening somebody told him about these records. Now certainly you can remember who told you last night, Counsel.
     Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Nixon, there were three people present at this time.
     There was Mr. Bradley, there was a partner of Mr. Bradley, and there was Mr. Hiss and myself, four persons present, as I remember, at the time of this conversation.
     Mr. NIXON. I see.
     Mr. DAVIS. I think it was Mr. Fontaine Bradley who gave me this information.
     Mr. NIXON. Who else could it have been?
     Mr. DAVIS. It is possible it was his partner who was there who gave me the information, but I do not believe that was so.
     Mr. NIXON. Then it definitely was Mr. Bradley or his partner who gave you the information?
     Mr. DAVIS. That is to the best of my recollection, and I shouldn't forget what happened last night.
     Mr. NIXON. Certainly. This conversation you had wasn't a telephone conversation?
     Mr. DAVIS. It was a person-to-person conversation.
     Mr. NIXON. Just what did he tell you?
     Mr. DAVIS. He told me, as I have just stated, that inquiries--and my memory is not certain whether he said the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, or what the bureau is, the official bureau where you go with respect to getting the certificates of title--inquiry had been made, I think not by him, but by some agent that he sent, to see if we could examine that certificate, and that he ascertained that the certificate itself had been photostated by the committee, I believe, at some prior time, but that the certificate itself had been removed from its customary place and was not available for inspection by our agent at the time we were there.
     Mr. NIXON. Thank you very much, Counsel.
     The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else want to ask counsel any questions before Mr. Stripling proceeds with the witness?
     Mr. Stripling.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Hiss, will you continue to give the committee the circumstances under which you met the person you have identified as George Crosley.
     Mr. HISS. According to my best recollection, a man representing himself to me as George Crosley came into my office in the Senate Office Building while I was acting as chief counsel to the Senate Committee Investigating the Munitions Industry. He represented himself as a free-lance writer for magazines. He represented himself as preparing a series of articles about the munitions investigation.
     As did many other members of the press, research people, and similar people, he had a perfect right to come to my office either directly or by reference from the central office. Very many members of the press and others interested did come to see me about the cases of which I was in charge.
     It was one of my duties to give the press such helpful information about the record, such guidance, one might say. as to the significance of what the committee had been developing. That is my best recollection of how I first met George Crosley.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Counsel, may I interpose a question here on a matter which Mr. Hiss has previously covered?
     Mr. STRIPLING. Yes.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Hiss, I understood you to say that you felt that the records of the leases should be checked before you could testify actually as to date; is that correct?
     Mr. HISS. I was asked, Mr. Nixon, on the 16th and, I think on the 17th-the record will show--
     (At this point an unknown person confers with Mr. Davis.)
     The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Counsel, will you please identify the man who came up?
     Mr. DAVIS. The man who came up is Mr. Harold Rosenwald.
     Mr. MUNDT. A little further identification, please. Is he counsel?
     Mr. DAVIS. He is a practicing lawyer in New York City.
     Mr. MUNDT. His address and the name of his firm?
    Mr. ROSENWALD. 55 Liberty Street, New York City. The firm is Oseas, Pepper & Segal, O-s-e-a-s-, Pepper & Segal. I am employed by them.
     (At this point there was a further consultation between Mr. Rosenwald and Mr. Davis.)
     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.
     Mr. Rosenwald, who has just been identified, is a graduate of the same law school that I am. 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. Willam Marbury, an old friend in Baltimore, who accompanied me to the other hearing on August 5, was sent within the 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.
     Various others have volunteered their assistance.
     The CHAIRMAN. I will say this for the committee. We are very much interested in hearing what you have to say.
     Mr. Nixon, did you have a question?
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Hiss was interrupted when he was answering.
     Mr. HISS. Will you repeat your question? I am sorry.
     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. 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.

     Mr. HISS. The name of the man I brought in--and he may have no relation to this whole nightmare--is a man named George Crosley. I met him when I was working for the Nye committee. He was a writer. He hoped to sell articles to magazines about the munitions industry. I saw him, as I saw in my office over in the Senate Office Building, dozens of representatives of the press, students, people writing books, research people. It was our job to give them appropriate information out of the record, show what had been put in the record. This fellow was writing a series of articles, according to my best recollection, freelancing, which he hoped to sell to one of the magazines. He was pretty obviously not successful in financial terms, but as far as I know was not actually hard up.
     Mr. STRIPLING. What color was his hair?
     Mr. HISS. Rather blondish; blonder than any of us here.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Was he married?
     Mr. HISS. Yes, sir.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Any children?
     Mr. HISS. One little baby, as I remember it, and the way I know that was the subleasing point. After we had taken the house on P Street and had the apartment on our hands, be one day in the course of casual conversation said he was going to specialize all summer in getting his articles done here in Washington, did not know what he was going to do, and was thinking of bringing his family. I said, "You can have my apartment. It is not terribly cool but it is up in the air and near the Wardman Park." He said he had a wife and little baby. The apartment was not very expensive and I think I let him have it at exact cost. My recollection is that he spent several nights in my house because his furniture van was delayed. We left several pieces of furniture behind. The P Street house belonged to a naval officer overseas and was partly furnished, so we did not need all our furniture, particularly during the summer months, and my recollection is that definitely, as one does with a tenant trying to make him agreeable and comfortable, we left several pieces of furniture behind until the fall. His van was delayed, was not going to bring all the furniture because he was going to be there just during the summer, and we put them up two or three nights in a row, his wife and little baby.
      Mr. NIXON. His wife and he and little baby did spend several nights in the house with you?
      Mr. HISS. This man Crosley; yes.

     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 0 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.
    It might be appropriate to mention that Mr. Bradley, whose name has come into the testimony, is also a personal friend of some standing.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Now, Mr. Hiss, when you moved to the P Street house, did you take your furniture with you?
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Stripling, I have been and will continue to do the best I can to remember these housekeeping details. I have talked to my wife on the telephone and asked her to remember as best she can.
    My best recollection is that I did not take all of the furniture that was in the Twenty-eighth Street apartment when I first moved into the P Street house; that I left some of it behind for Mr. Crosley's use.
    As I testified, it is my recollection that the house at 2905 P Street was furnished or partly furnished, and that we did not actually need all of our own furniture in order to furnish that house.
     Mr. STRIPLING. So you sublet the apartment to Mr. Crosley; is that correct ?
    Mr. HISS. Under the circumstances I have stated, according to my best recollection, the answer is "Yes."
     Mr. STRIPLING. Now, you stated that Mr. Crosley and his wife and baby stayed several days in your house on P Street prior to moving into the apartment. Is that correct?
     Mr. HISS. That again is to the best of my recollection, Mr. Stripling.
     Mr. STRIPLING. And the reason they stayed with you is because they were waiting for a moving van to come down?
     Mr. HISS. So I recall, Mr. Stripling.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Now, I will read your testimony which you gave on August 16, beginning on page 53.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Stripling, before you go into that may I clear up the matter about the lease?
     Mr. STRIPLING. Yes.
     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.
    As I said in the letter which I sent to the chairman, the chairman said he read my letter of yesterday in the newspapers. That was certainly not necessary. The letter was delivered to the chairman's office, a signed letter by me.
     The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to say that the chairman was not in the office when your letter arrived; but he did have an opportunity to read the letter in this morning's New York Herald Tribune.
     Mr. HISS. It was delivered to your office yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman.
     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 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.
     The significant thing in my memory is my recollection that I was in position to assure Crosley of several months' occupancy of the apartment which I had been living in on Twenty-eighth Street.
     Mr. NIXON. I think we can cut through it with these short questions:
     You did not lease the apartment to Crosley until you had moved into the other house; is that correct?
     Mr. HISS. That is my best recollection.
     Mr. NIXON. Your lease on the other house according to the records began on May 1. You will agree with that?
     Mr. HISS. That is what the records seem to show. I have not seen the records myself.
     Mr. NIXON. We have the letter which Mr. Stripling just handed you. If the records show that, you will agree that the records are correct on that point?
     Mr. HISS. I have no reason for questioning the records.
     Mr. NIXON. You suggested that we go to the records.
     Mr. HISS. I didn't hear you.
     Mr. NIXON. You suggested that we go to the records.
     Mr. HISS. I have, indeed.
     Mr. NIXON. That is what we have done, and it showed that lease began on May 1.
     Mr. HISS. I have been trying to go to them, too, Mr. Nixon.
     Mr. NIXON. Certainly. The records also show that your lease on the apartment ran out on June 28. It is quite apparent, then, that the time Mr. Crosley could have stayed in this apartment was a period of approximately 8 to 9 weeks from May 1 and June 28.
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Nixon, I doubt if this is the occasion for any argumentation as to what the facts mean.
     Mr. NIXON. I am not arguing.
     Mr. HISS. But I think I heard Mr. Stripling read that the apartment, according to Randall Hagner--were they the agents?
     Mr. STRIPLING. Yes.
     Mr. HISS. According to their records was not leased to anyone during the month of July; so there could be a third month when, if Mr. Crosley had wanted to stay on in that apartment, he could presumably have done so by arrangements with Randall Hagner.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Chairman, this might clarify that point. According to the records of the Potomac Electric Co., the electricity was turned off at the Twenty-eighth Street apartment on June 29, 1935.
     Mr. NIXON. When was the gas turned off in that apartment?
     Mr. STRIPLING. It was turned off on June 26,1935.
     Mr. NIXON. June 26. If Mr. Crosley did stay in that apartment another month up to August 1, he stayed there without gas or electricity.
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Nixon, may I comment? I have not been testifying at any time as to how long Mr. Crosley stayed there. I have been talking about how long I thought I was in position to let him stay there, to facilitate his staying there, if he so desired.
    I do not know and I have not attempted to testify as to how long he in fact stayed there.
     Mr. NIXON. You will now agree, though, that it could only have been for 2 months?
     Mr. HISS. You mean how long he actually stayed there? On the basis of gas and electricity being turned off and this man's record I don't think I would want to say what he was doing or wasn't doing.
     Mr. NIXON. You think he might have stayed in the apartment even with the gas off?
     Mr. HISS. Let's not speculate.
     Mr. NIXON. With a small baby.
     Mr. HISS. Let's not speculate, Mr. Nixon.
     Mr. NIXON. Proceed, Mr. Stripling.
     Mr. HISS. I don't know whether his wife and baby were with him at that time, or whether they were always with him or not.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Mr. Hiss, George Crosley, who you testified you first met in 1934--do you know of anyone here in Washington who knew him as George Crosley?
     Mr. HISS. In answer to that question, Mr. Stripling, I have naturally among the very many other things that I have been trying to check in the few days since Monday of last week, I have been trying to run down the list of staff members of the Senate Committee Investigating the Munitions Industry.
    As far as I can find out, there is no one single official list anywhere now available. I have recalled certain of the members of the staff. I recalled three names offhand of people that Crosley might have met in addition to me around the committee.
     I mentioned Mr. Raushenbush, the chief investigator. He is away on vacation. I have seen in the press that the press reached him and he doesn't have any recollection of Crosley. I want to talk personally to Mr. Raushenbush. I want to see if he can recall from my description of the circumstances under which I knew Crosley more than he has told
the press.
     I recalled the name of Robert Wohlford.
     Mr. STRIPLING. You gave both of these names to the committee in New York?
     Mr. HISS. Yes; I did-who was also a member of the staff. I recalled my off-the-cuff recollection. He is now in New York, I understand. I have asked friends of mine to talk to Bob Wohlford.
     I remembered also the name of Miss Elsie Gullender, who was, as it were, the chief receptionist of the committee. She was Mr. Raushenbush's secretary and acted as sort of an over-all chief of the secretarial staff.
     If Crosley had been referred to me by the central office of the committee-and our offices were scattered all over the Senate Office Building and we took what space was vacant, what we could get and what we could use-it would probably have been Miss Gullender who would first have sent him to me, although he could have come direct to me because I had been conducting hearings, my name was publicly known, the cases that I was working on were publicly known.
     I have been informed that Miss Elsie Gullender is now dead. I am not sure that is the fact. I want, if possible, to locate Miss Gullender. I have been trying to locate other members of the staff and trying to find out the names of some of the other members.
     I have a recollection of one man whose name I have not yet been able to recall, though I recall his personality. I would like to find out from him.
     I would hope that I will be able to find others than myself and my wife who remember George Crosley under the circumstances I have testified to. I shall certainly continue without rest to attempt to find out all the information I can on this subject and on this man, both as Crosley and as Chambers, and let the committee have whatever I can find out.
     I think we were just beginning the inquiry.
     Mr. MUNDT. Mr. Hiss, is this a fair summary, then, of your position up to now?
     That as of today you have not found anybody other than your wife who ever knew this man over here under the name of George Crosley?
     Mr. HISS. I received a telephone call--rather, one of my counsel did-from someone, a woman, who said she had known George Crosley at this time, that she was fearful of getting her employer in Dutch or something by publicity. We were not able to trace the call. She may have been imagining.
     So far, the answer to your question is: I have not yet been able to find any witness other than my wife who remembers him as George Crosley.
     Mr. MUNDT. Let me ask this question. The possibility would seem very plausible to me that since Mr. Crosley, as you call him, lived in your home for awhile while he was getting his furniture transferred, that your brother Donald undoubtedly visited your home frequently.
     Have you ever conferred with Donald to see whether he knew this man as George Crosley?
     Mr. HISS. I have asked him and he has no recollection.
     Mr. MUNDT. He had no recollection?
     Mr. HISS. No; and I have tried to locate my neighbors in the apartment. My next door neighbor I have been unable to locate, though I have his name and we are doing our best to find him. It takes a long, time to reconstruct these details after a long time when one's resources are limited.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Now, Mr. Chairman, the three names the witness has mentioned-Elsie Gullender, Robert Wohlford, Stephen Raushenbush-were the three that he gave the committee in New York, and we asked him if he could furnish us the names of three people to corroborate his statement that Whittaker Chambers was known to him as George Crosley in 1934 and '35.
    The New York Herald Tribune carried a story which stated that they had communicated with Mr. Raushenbush and he had no recollection of it. As Mr. Hiss has stated, according to our investigation, Elsie Gullender died September 24, 1946. We have been endeavoring to locate Robert Wohlford. His office here at the Department of Justice had advised us that he was in. We have sent numerous telegrams, all of which have been returned.
     Now, because Mr. Hiss stated Mr. Crosley was a free-lance writer for American magazine and other publications--
     Mr. HISS. May I interrupt? What I think Mr. Stripling has been stating in summary is exactly my recollection of my testimony-- I did not testify as a fact that Mr. Crosley wrote for American magazine.
     I testified that my best recollection was that he had told me that American magazine was one of the magazines he hoped to sell his free-lance articles about the Munitions Committee to.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Well, Mr. Chairman, we asked the Library of Congress, Director of Legislative Reference Service, to check their files for any articles by George Crosley.
     The following letter was received from Ernest S. Griffith, Director, Legislative Reference Service, addressed to Mr. Benjamin Mandel, Director of Research:

    DEAR MR. MANDEL: In response to your request for any writings by George Crosley, the following sources have been examined with reference to George Crosley or Crosley. The results of the search are indicated.
    Readers Guide to Periodical Literature, January 1929-June 1941-No reference.
    Public Catalogue---Two references, one to a book of poems written by G. Crosley in 1905, the other to a scientific pamphlet on ultraviolet light by G. E. Crosley, M. D., in 1936.
    Copyright Division-No additional references.
    Any further searching you may suggest, we shall be glad to undertake.
     Sincerely yours,
    EUNEST S. GRIFFITH,
    Director, Legislative Reference Service.

    I also have a letter here, Mr. Chairman, from the American magazine, that states that they have never published any articles by George Crosley.
     Now, Mr. Hiss. I should like to read now from your testimony which you gave before the committee on August 16, page 53:

    Mr. STRIPLING. What kind of automobile did that fellow have?

     referring to Mr. Crosley.

    Mr. HISS. No kind of automobile. I sold him an automobile. I had an old, Ford that I threw in with the apartment and had been trying to trade it in and get rid of it. I had an old, old Ford we had kept for sentimental reasons. We got it just before we were married in 1929.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Was it a model A or model T?
     Mr. HISS. Early A model with a trunk on the back, a slightly collegiate model.
    Mr. STRIPLING. What color?
     Mr. HISS. Dark blue. It wasn't very fancy, but it had a sassy little trunk on the back.
     Mr. NIXON. You sold that car?
     Mr. HISS. I threw it in. He wanted a way to get around, and I said, "Fine; I want to get rid of it. I have another car, and we kept it for sentimental reasons, not worth a damn. I let him have it along with the rent.
     Now, would you give the committee the arrangements of this lease again, Mr. Hiss.
     Mr. HISS. Of the lease of the apartment?
     Mr. STRIPLING. That is right. And the car, the manner in which you threw the car in.
     Mr. HISS. My best recollection is that at the time, or shortly after we first talked about Crosley's subletting my apartment, he said that he wished to get a car because his family would be with him while he was in Washington. I think he asked if you could rent a car, and my best recollection is that I told him that I had an old car which I would let
     him have, a car which had practically no financial value. That is the best recollection I have on the car transaction after all these years.
     Mr. MUNDT. Was the reason that that car had no value to you the fact that you had another automobile at the time?
     Mr. HISS. My best recollection is that at some time, Mr. Mundt, I had both a Plymouth and this old Ford. Whether that overlap occurred prior to my letting Crosley use the Ford, I cannot recall with positiviness. I do have a very definite, although general, recollection that I had both a Ford and a Plymouth for a period of time, with the Ford of no use, deteriorating, being left outdoors.
     Mr. STRIPLING. .Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to read from--
     Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Stripling, may I interrupt there to sort of pursue this a little further, with regard to what Mr. Mundt has asked Mr. Hiss?
     Mr. Hiss, you would remember if you had two automobiles at one time; would you not?
     Mr. HISS. I say I do remember that I did have two automobiles at one time. That made quite an impression on me.
     Mr. HEBERT. It made an impression on you that you owned two automobiles at one time?
     Mr. HISS. That is right. But, as to the particular time when I had the two automobiles, it was sometime during this general period. As to the particular time, without consulting the records, I am not able to testify with positiveness.
    Mr. HEBERT. I want to get this clear. In other words, you would not have given up the mode of transportation if you did not have any transportation yourself.
     Mr. HISS. Unless I was not going to need automobile transportation for a period of time.
     Mr. HEBERT. Then the logical assumption would be that you did have two automobiles at the same time that you gave this man Crosley your automobile.
     Mr. HISS. That is my best recollection. Whether it is accurate in detail I will know better when I get the records and can attempt to refresh my recollection, Mr. Hebert.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me put the remainder of the testimony regarding the ownership of the automobile which is on page 56.
     Mr. NIXON. You gave this Ford car to Crosley?
     Mr. HISS. Threw it in along with the apartment and charged the rent and threw the car in at the same time.
     Mr. NIXON. In other words, added a little to the rent to cover the car?
     Mr. HISS. No.; I think I charged him exactly what I was paying for the rent and threw the car in addition. I don't think I got any compensation.
     Mr. STRIPLING. You just gave him the car?
     Mr. HISS. I think the car just went right in with it. I don't remember whether we had settled on the terms of the rent before the car question came up, or whether it came up and then on the basis of the car and the apartment I said, "Well, you ought to pay the full rent."
     On page 58 the record continues:

     Mr. STRIPLING. What kind of a bill of sale did you give Crosley?
     Mr. HISS--

     referring to the car--

     Mr. HISS. I think I just turned over-in the District you get a certificate of title, I think it is. I think I just simply turned it over to him.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Handed it to him?
     Mr. HISS. Yes.
     Mr. STRIPLING. No evidence of any transfer. Did he record the title?
     Mr. HISS. That I haven't any idea. This is a car which had been sitting on the streets in snows for a year or two. I once got a parking fine because I forgot where it was parked. We were using the other car.

     Now, Mr. Hiss, is that the testimony, according to your best recollection? 
     Mr. HISS. That testimony was according to my best recollection at the time I gave it, and that is why I gave it. I have not yet been able to get the record, as my counsel has testified. We have not been able to ascertain from the Motor Vehicle Bureau people what their records show with respect to that car.
     Mr. STRIPLING. What did Mr. Crosley do with this Ford, do you know?
     Mr. HISS. I frankly do not recall. It is possible that he used it; it is even possible that he returned it to me after using it. I really would not be sure of the details.
     My impression and recollection was that I got rid of it by giving it to him, but if the records show that it bounced back to me from him, that would not surprise me either.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Hiss, you sold the car a year later, did you not?
     Mr. HISS. Not to my recollection. I have no definite recollection of it.
     Mr. STRIPLING. You do not recall selling the car?
     Mr. HISS. I have no definite recollection.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Did you have a Plymouth during this period? Did you have another car?
     Mr. HISS. My recollection is that I did have a Plymouth during part of the same time that I had the Ford.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have here an application for a certificate of title of the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Bureau of the District of Columbia, wherein it states that Alger Hiss, 2905 P Street, NW, purchased or acquired the above-described car: Plymouth, new, model; year, 1935; body, sedan. 

It gives the serial number, engine number, and states:

     How secured: Conditional sale; date, September 7, 1935, purchased from the Smoot Motor Co., Inc.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question at this point.
     The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nixon.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Hiss, your recollection is still that you gave the car--to Crosley as part of the apartment deal; is that correct?
     Mr. HISS. My recollection is as definite as it can be after this lapse of time, Mr. Nixon, that as I was able to give him the use of the apartment, I also and simultaneously, I think, although it could possibly have been a little later, gave him the use of the model A 1929 old Ford. That is my best recollection.
     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. Hebert 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. I was promised it long before I got it. I remember the explanation of the committee that Mr. Banister, who was taking it, the stenographer, had not been able to transcribe it.
     It took me a long time, with my office here constantly calling both the committee and the stenographer, for me ever to get it. I got it quite belatedly.
     Mr. NIXON. When did you get it?
     Mr. HISS. You gave me part of it, a relatively small part, perhaps half of the 16th, on the 18th.
     Mr. NIXON. On the 17th; on the 17th, the day yon testified, 24 hours after you gave the testimony, you had the first half.
     Mr. HISS. Did yon give it to me the day I testified in New York?
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Hiss, you recall--
     Mr. HISS. Or was it some time--I am asking whether it was the day I testified or the day Mrs. Hiss testified?
     Mr. NIXON. You will recall it was the day you testified.
     Mr. HISS. Well, I do not challenge what you say. I do remember the difficulty with which I was pursuing getting it. I had been assured that it would be ready the first thing next morning, and it was not.
     Mr. NIXON. In other words, the first half of your testimony that you gave in your executive session on Monday you received 24 hours later on Tuesday, when I delivered it to you in New York.
     Mr. HISS. After very considerable inquiry and demand, and having heard a variety of stories out of the committee as to why it was not possible. There had to be a letter of approval, there had to be this, and that, and the rest of my testimony I got late Friday, only by having a messenger fly it up to New York to get it to me, Mr. Nixon.
     Mr. NIXON. The messenger received that testimony from the committee on Friday morning, did he not?
     Mr. HISS. I do not know the exact time. I know he was not able to get it to me in New York until about 5 or 5: 30 of the afternoon of Friday, and I know he flew in order to get it to me, Mr. Nixon.
     Mr. NIXON. That was 48 hours after the testimony had been completed; is that correct?
     Mr. HISS. The record will show exactly when the testimony was completed. If it is 48 hours, it is 48 hours.
     Mr. NIXON. That is right. In other words, you had the testimony for 5 days then?
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Nixon, the way you put the question would indicate--that if I had done nothing it would have reached me 48 hours after. I had to move heaven and earth to try to get it.
     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. STRIPLING. That is page 58.
     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 38; 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.
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Mundt, you referred to the depression. It is also a fact that old second-hand cars had a not considerable value during the depression. If the depression is relevant to our question, it seems to me that an additional fact is also relevant. Now, what is the exact question you are asking me.
     Mr. MUNDT. You have answered it. I have asked it, and you have answered it.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Mundt, may I interpose a question at that point?
     Mr. MUNDT. Yes.
     Mr. NIXON. As far as the value of Ford roadsters at that time go, I think it might be relevant to quote from the want ads which appeared in the Washington Evening Star in June 1935 as to the value of 1929 Ford roadsters. The value which is given here, the lowest cash value, is $59. In consulting the dealers in Washington, the committee investigators found that the trade-in value on a car would be more than $59. The lowest cash value of all the want ads that appeared at that time for '29 Ford roadsters was $59.
     I only bring this in to show that the car had something a little more than a sentimental value, even in 1935.
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Nixon, as I have testified before, my recollection is that I was at no time ever told that that car, during this period, had a value of more than $25 or $30 or $35.
     Mr. MUNDT. Well, let us assume it was worth $35. Are you a man, or were you at that time a man, of such means that $35 meant nothing to you at all ?
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Mundt, as I have also testified, I had a sentimental attachment to this car which transcended $35 or $20 or $25 or $30.
     Rather than simply see it go on the scrap heap through a trade-in, or a casual sale, I had hung on to it as it depreciated in value.
     Mr. MUNDT. Very well but it had depreciated down to $35, according to your testimony, or $59, according to the official Blue Book at the time, or something over $59, as a trade-in value.
     Now, you said you sold him the car, and you again repeated that today, and on page 58 of your statement.
     Mr. HISS. Mr. Mundt, I think I also in the course of that same testimony, and with equal truthfulness, so far as I could recall, said that I gave it to him. I have not been through the record on this particular point. I think you will find various references to the
transaction on the 16th, the testimony of the 16th.
     Mr. MUNDT. That is right.
     Mr. HISS. And the testimony on the 17th.
     Mr. MUNDT. You testified originally--
     Mr. HISS. It may be--
     Mr. MUNDT. Wait a minute. It may be that you testified--
     The CHAIRMAN. Let us have one speaker at a time.
     Mr. MUNDT. Yes; you have something to say?
     Mr. HISS. It may be that you are pointing to the one place in the testimony where I said "sold." It may be I said "sold" more than once. I have not checked, Mr. Mundt.
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Mundt, may I just, to clear this up, say that I have made a study of this record on the automobile, and I would like to read for the record at this time the references, all the references, which I have been able to find concerning what Mr. Hiss did say about this car. I want the committee to know the type of question and the type of answer.
     I also want the committee to know whether or not in these cases Mr. Hiss qualified his answers with the "to. the best of my recollection" statement.
    I want to say that before I do read this, that Mr. Hiss, as he has stated when he first began to testify said that he did not want to testify concerning his leases, and his apartments, without checking the leases, and that on that point he did want to testify to the best of his recollection.
    Now, let me read this just for the record at this point so that there will be no question in the minds of the members of the committee or of Mr. Hiss that we are reading only parts of the record on this automobile.
     The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. MUNDT. That is a good idea.
    Mr. NIXON. The first reference comes on page 52 and I shall read:

     Mr. STRIPLING. What kind of automobile did that fellow have?
     Mr. HISS. No kind of automobile. I sold him an automobile. I had an old Ford that I threw in with the apartment and had been trying to trade it in and get rid of it. I had an old, old Ford we had kept for sentimental reasons. We got it just before we were married in 1929.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Was it a model A or model T?
     Mr. HISS. Early A model with a trunk on the back. a slightly collegiate model.
    Mr. STRIPLING. What color?
    Mr. HISS. Dark blue. It wasn't very fancy but it had a sassy little trunk on the back.
    Mr. NIXON. You sold that car?
     Mr. HISS. I threw it in. He wanted a way to get around and I said, "Fine. I want to get rid of it. I have another car, and we kept it for sentimental reasons, not worth a damn." I let him have it along with the rent.

     Mr. DAVIS. To make the record clear, I think you said page 52--I think it is page 53.
     Mr. NIXON. Page 53, you are correct; it is 53 that I am reading from.
     There is a strike-over on my page; it looks like 52.
     Mr. DAVIS. Mine, too.
     Mr. NIXON. I have that page:

    "I have another car, and we kept it for sentimental reasons, not worth a damn."
    I let him have it along with the rent.

    The next reference to the car comes on page 56 of the record, as I recall it, and I must say that there may have been one spot, two spots, that I have missed, but I have attempted to get them all here so that the record will be clear.
     Mr. NIXON. You gave this Ford car to Crosley?
     Mr. HISS. Threw it in along with the apartment and charge the rent and threw the car in at the same time.
     Mr. NIXON. In other words, added a little to the rent to cover the car?
     Mr. HISS. No; I think I charged him exactly what I was paying for the rent and threw the car in addition. I don't think I got any compensation.
     Mr. STRIPLING. You just gave him the car?
     Mr. HISS. I think the car just went right in with it. I do not remember whether we had settled on the terms of the rent before the car question came up, or whether it came up and then on the basis of the car and the apartment I said, "Well, you ought to pay the full rent."
     The next reference that I find in the record concerning the car is on page 58 starting at the bottom of page 57:
     Mr. STRIPLING. What kind of a car did you get?
     Mr. HISS. A Plymouth.
     Mr. STRIPLING. A Plymouth?
     Mr. HISS. Semisedan.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Four-door?
     Mr. HISS. I think I have always had only two-door.
     Mr. STRIPLING. What kind of bill of sale did you give Crosley?

     I should like to interpose at this point that when a bill of sale is discussed, a bill of sale refers to a transfer of title to an automobile.

     Mr. HISS. I think I just turned over--in the District you get a certificate of title, I think it is. I think I just simply turned it over to him.
     Mr. STRIPLING. Handed it to him?
     Mr. HISS. Yes.
     Mr. STRIPLING. No evidence of any transfer. Did he record the title?
     Mr. HISS. That I have not any idea. This is a car which had been sitting on the streets in snows for a year or two. I once got a parking fine because I forgot where it was parked. We were using the other car.

    I turn now to the testimony--I think this is the next reference--to the testimony given on the following day, on the 17th, and I will refer the committee to page 13 of that testimony, and we again pick up the car at that point:

    In the course of the negotiation he referred to the fact that he also wanted an automobile.

    And then, turning again--that is Mr. Hiss' testimony--I will refer the committee to page 19 of the testimony on Tuesday, the 17th--we will start at the bottom of page 18 so that you can get the continuity:
     Mr. NIXON. So you agreed with him that he could move into your apartment for 3 months, approximately?
     Mr. HISS. That is correct.
    Mr. NIXON. Which would be for a consideration of, say, $225, roughly?
     Mr. HISS. Whatever the actual cost to me was.
     Mr. NIXON. And then there was some conversation about a car. What was that?
     Mr. HISS. There was. Mr. Crosley said that while he was in Washington he wondered if he could. get a rented car or something, because he would like to have it while his family were with him, get out week ends, something like that. I said, "You came to just the right place. I will be very glad to throw a car in because I have been trying to get rid of an old car which we have kept solely for sentimental reasons which we couldn't get anything on for trade-in or sale." I would be very glad to let him have the car because we
    wanted somebody to make real use of it. We had had it sitting on the city streets because we had a new one.
    Mr. NIXON. It was a '29 Ford?
    Mr. HISS. One of the first model A Fords.
    Mr. NIXON. The year of this transaction would be 1935?
    Mr. HISS. That would be my best recollection.
    Mr. NIXON. A 6-year-old Ford?
    Mr. HISS. That is right.
    Mr. NIXON. You just gave him the car with his $225 rental?
    Mr. HISS. As part of the total contract. That is my best recollection.
    Mr. NIXON. The rent was simply the going rate, as you indicated?
    Mr. HISS. That is right.
    Mr. NIXON. And you just threw in this 6-year-old car with it?
    Mr. HISS. That is my best recollection. I don't think it figured as a financial element in the transaction.
    Mr. NIXON. Do you know the Blue Book value of a 1929 Ford in 1935?
    Mr. HISS. I certainly don't. I know what the going rate was with sellers of new cars. I think the most I had ever been offered for it was $25 or $30 at that time, a few months before that.
    Mr. NIXON. So you gave him this car?
    Mr. HISS. As part of the whole transaction.

    I now turn to page 40 of the record on Tuesday:

    Mr. NIXON. You never knew this man under the name of Carl?
    Mr. HISS. I did not.
    Mr. NIXON. You never paid this man any money for Communist Party dues?
    Mr. HISS. I certainly did not.
    Mr. NIXON. This is the man you gave the car to?
    Mr. HISS. Car?
    Mr. NIXON. Yes.
    Mr. HISS. C-a-r-yes.

    On page 41:

    Mr. NIXON. You have never given Crosley anything you recall besides the car?
    Mr. HISS. I have no such recollection. I don't consider I gave him the car, but threw it in with the whole transaction.
      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 record 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.
l    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 that the committee has had access to more records. It has had a fuller staff than I.
     In reading over the record over the week end, I noticed one of your questions to me, after I had been testifying to the best of my recollection, that I lived on Twenty-ninth Street, and at one point you said, "Now, this apartment was on Twenty-eighth Street," and I, in my ignorance, corrected you, and said, "No, Twenty-ninth Street," and you
said, "Oh, no, Twenty-eighth Street."
     Mr. NIXON. Mr. Hiss, there is not going to be any question about the committee raising a question as to whether you said Twenty-eighth or Twenty-ninth. That is something that any person could forget. But I do not think--
     Mr. HISS. But I think you knew, Mr. Nixon.
     Mr. NIXON. But I do not think--I have not raised the point this morning, and do not intend to.
     Mr. HISS. No; but I say I think you knew it was Twenty-eighth Street when you asked me. I think you already had access to records that I had not had time to have access to in order to refresh my recollection.
     Mr. NIXON. Certainly.
     Mr. HISS. That is all on that.
     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 $80. 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 beginnin