Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case

Please give me a helpful vote on Amazon -https://www.amazon.com/review/RQP1T1K0VW44X/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case by Allen Weinstein

When this book came out in 1978 it was declared to be the definitive work on the mystery of the Hiss-Chambers case. Weinstein had started out with the belief that Hiss had been wrongfully convicted, and, with his aim of showing that Hiss was innocent, Weinstein was given access to Hiss and Hiss's supporters and to their internal and confidential documents. A consideration of all the evidence turned Weinstein from a Hiss defender to a historian who was convinced that Hiss had done what he was accused of doing. Weinstein's conclusions were buttressed – and, in fact, confirmed – by subsequent disclosures, such as documents from the post-Soviet intelligence world, the CIA's release of intercepted Soviet communications, information obtained from the FBI through FOIA requests, and the intervention of the ACLU, and, perhaps, by the willingness of witnesses to share information in the 1970s that they were reluctant to share in the 1940s.

Coming at this book after reading Whittaker Chambers' Witness and Alistair Cooke's A Generation on Trial is illuminating. Weinstein provides a damning backstory to the public face of the Hiss trial that corroborates Chambers' account. (Both Chambers and Cooke were limited in their source of information. They could only share what they knew and they only knew either, in Chambers' case, his backstory, and in Cooke's case, only the public version shared in trial.) For example, we learn from Weinstein that foreman in the first trial was suspected by Prosecutor Murphy of being biased for Hiss based on what seemed like colorable reports about the foreman's bias, albeit based on things said by the foreman's wife that “if it was up to him, Hiss will get away with it.” (p. 445.) The request was refused. During his closing, Murphy made a point of telling the jury that the foreman had no authority other than to announce the verdict. (p. 490.) Nonetheless, the foreman – Hubert James – was steadfast in advocating Hiss's innocence and was able to induce three others to join with him. (p. 492.)

Neither of the books by Cooke or Chambers contained any of this information. Perhaps, it was too much “inside game” to be included, or, perhaps, the meaning of Murphy's statement flew over Cooke's head. Weinstein, however, points out that the foreman was “related by marriage to a man who would soon become an adviser to Hiss.” (p. 494.) As an attorney, I know two things: first, that weird things happen in jury selection - after all, what are the odds that out of 12 people selected at random, any one of them would have that kind of connection? – but it does happen, as I know from personal experience. Second, I know that no one would have seen it coming. James' strange statements would have been inexplicable to Murphy and the judge, but once you get that one, small detail, the mind clicks and everything becomes clear.

So, from Weinstein, we learn something about the strange fact that the first jury could not come to a decision.

Another useful bit of backstory Weinstein provides is the motivation for Hiss's actions. The best evidence that Hiss had going for him was the inexplicable nature of his actions. Specifically, why would someone so “establishment” have been such a traitor? The inexplicability of Hiss's alleged conduct is matched by the inexplicability of Chambers suddenly throwing away his prestigious position at Time to suddenly make accusations against a man who, if we believe Hiss's account, he had known for a few months over a decade before.

However, from Weinstein we learn that Priscilla Hiss was deeply involved in radical politics. Cooke mentions the detail about Priscilla being a registered Socialist, which Priscilla waived off as a mistake, but nothing more is said about the connection with radical politics and the official position of the Hiss's was that of a bourgeoisie couple. In fact, as Weinstein points out, Priscilla's involvement in radical politics was very deep and active. Moreover, Alger was clearly desperately in love with her. He had courted her, only to have lost her to another, and then had a new opportunity to achieve his desiderata when she divorced. I didn't see anything in his background that suggested radicalism, but after he married Priscilla he became involved in all manner of radical politics. Clearly, the time was suitable for such an interest in the era of the Great Depression and the rise of fascism, but it is also true that Priscilla was deeply involved with Alger's treachery, so much so, in fact, that Alger's lawyers believed that she was the spy, and not Alger.

Once the information of Alger's radicalization is provided, Hiss's association with Chambers, and his disloyalty, become explicable and unsurprising. As I said, none of this was mentioned by Cooke or Chambers, and it seems that it did not make its way into trial. I wonder why that is the case? Cooke does not mention any in limine motions on the subject, and, certainly, Murphy would have had the resources of the FBI to perform such a background investigation.

Another bit of background information is the involvement of the Catlett in the aggressive project of the Hiss family, which included Alger's brother Donald, in finding the typewriter. In Cooke's book, Mike Catlett is depicted as a buffoon, shucking and jiving to the amusement of the jury. The reader knows – just knows – that Mike Catlett is lying, but the motivation for such lying is unclear. The answer is that Catlett was trying to hide his own involvement in actively searching for the typewriter at the behest of Donald Hiss while maintaining that the typewriter had been given by the Hisses to his family at an early enough date so as to preclude the possibility that the Hisses could have used the typewriter for espionage.

Another interesting bit of information is how much Alger was suspected prior to Chambers coming forward. Thus, in September of 1945, Igor Gouzenko, a Russian code clerk at the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa, Canada, defected with documents that proved the existence of a larger Russian espionage network in Canada and the United States. (p. 375.) Gouzenko informed the FBI that the Soviets had an agent who was an assistant to the Secretary of State. (p. 375.) Chambers had identified Hiss as a Russian agent to the US government, via Assistant Secretary of State Adolf Berle, in 1939, and had reaffirmed that disclosure on several other occasions to the FBI. Similarly, the CIA had the Venona intercepts that were pointing to a Soviet mole close to the Secretary of State.

And, yet, with all that information, nothing was done. The indifference of the government to Soviet penetration explains Chambers' paranoia about the risk to his life and liberty at the hands of the US government. It also explains why so many Americans were ready to believe the truth that there were Soviet agents in the government that the government was knowingly harboring (albeit McCarthy's subsequent accusations may have been overstated.)

Weinstein also brings up another line of corroboration unknown to Cooke or Chambers, namely the interrogation of Noel Field by Hungarian intelligence. Field was an American who had been employed by the State Department. Field was a Soviet agent during the late 1930s. When he was in Europe in the 1950s, the Soviets imprisoned Fields. During his interrogation by the Hungarians, Field implicated Hiss as a Soviet agent.

So, the fascinating thing is how much evidence implicates Hiss, and how Hiss's guilt should have been an “open secret” to the American intelligence community. And, yet, the notion that there really were Soviet spies in America is pooh-poohed as paranoia and the search for very real Soviet spies has been mischaracterized as a “witch hunt.” As Weinstein points out, when Hiss died in 1996, the media treated Hiss as having been vindicated, based on an in accurate statement by a Russian general trying to be charitable, ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

This is a long and detailed book. I do think that reading the earlier books before reading this book is a useful exercise for those with the time. As the Hiss-Chambers case recedes into history, what the issues were and what people fought over blurs. Reading the original material, for me, made this book come alive.