Evening star., 1949-11-20
New Hiss Testimony
Expected 70 Add Only
Little 10 Earlier Story
BY NewboId Noyes, Jr.
Stor Stoff Corrssponosnt

seems unlikely that the retrial of
the Alger Hiss perjury case, which
resumes here tomorrow, will add
anything startlingly new to the
plot Of the Chambers-Hiss drama.
Both Assistant United States
Attorney Thomas F. Murphy, the
prosecutor, and Defense Attorney
Claude B. Cross, limited in their
opening speeches yesterday that
something new would be added
to the testimony produced at the
first trial, which ended in a hung
jury last July 8.
What they said, however, seems
to indicate the new evidence will
be mainly an enlargement on the
original testimony. a clarification
of the issues, a filling in of the
gaps, an attempt to suggest
answers to some unanswered
questions. It probably will draw
the lines tighter in the mystery
which developed IS months ago.
when Whitaker Chambers first
denounced Mr.. Hiss as a fellow
Communist.
Won't Change Broad Outline.
It probably will not affect the
broad outline Of that mystery. nor
alter its component parts.
Mr.. Hiss, 45, former State De-
partment career man and former
president of the Carnegie Endow-
ment for international Peace. is
accused of lying to a Federal
grand jury last December Is,
when he denied giving secret Gov
ernment papers to MIR. Chambers
for transmission to Russian agents
In 1898, and said he had not seen
Mr.. Chambers after 1896.
Mr.. Chambers, 48, self-con-
fessed ex-Communist agent and
former senior editor Of Time
Magazine, Is the Governments
principal witness against him.
In his speech yesterday. Prose-
eutor Murphy promised the jury
Of 8 women and men new evi-
dence and new testimony" The
most likely source Of this material
seems to be Mrs. Hedda Massing.
the first wife Of Gerhart Eisler.
Communist underground leader
who escaped this country early in
the spring aboard the Polish liner
Batory.
Defense May Have New Material
Mrs. Massing allegedly knew
both Mr.. Chambers and Mr.. Hiss
as Communists in Washington
before the war. Judge Samuel H.
Kaufman, who presided at the
first trial. refused to let her tes-
.tify when the Government called
her as q rebuttal witness. Mr..
Murphy may hope. however, that
this time Judge Henry w. God
dard will permit Mrs. Massing to
tell her story. particularly II she
is called while the prosecution Is
presenting It's case rather than n
rebuttal.
It seems likely, however, that
most of the new material Will
come from the defense, suggesting
possible answers to some OF the
big questions left unanswered by
Mr.. Hiss side in the first trial.
One of the biggest of these ques-
tions already has been answered
by the defense: Were copies OF
the secret documents, produced
by Mr.. Chambers. really typed on
q Woodstock machine which be-
longed to the Kisses in the 1905?
In the first trial, when Govern
ment experts testified that this
was a fact. the issue was entirely
ducked by Mr.. Hiss lawyers. The
defense contended, but was unable
to show conclusively, that the
Kisses had given the typewriter
to servants by early 1888, when
Mr.. Chambers received the secret
documents. 4
Mr.. Cross faced this question
sQuarely yesterday. He told the
jury that experts consulted by
the defense agreed the copies
probably were typed on the Hiss
typewriter.
Other Questions Arise. 4
A second question arises: II the
Kisses did not type the copies for
Mr.. Chambers on their typewriter.
who did? This question also was
ducked at the first trial. Mr.. Cross
indicated Friday the defense will
try to show this time that Mr..
Chambers himself, with other con-
federates, could have traced the
machine after it left the Kisses
hands and typed the copies them
selves.
Mr.. Cross stressed that no evi-
dence has ever been introduced
showing when the copies were
typed-that this could have been
done at any time after March
and April, 1888, when the original
documents were removed from the
State Department.
A third question suggests itself:
How could Mr.. Chambers have
traced down the typewriter, and
how and when could he have pro-
cured it? This will be a difficult
one for the defense, since at the
first trial the servants to whom
the typewriter allegedly was given,
seemed to indicate they kept the
machine for several years.
No testimony introduced by the
defense limited in any way that
the machine passed through the
hands Of anyone other than q
series of colored families in
Georgetown-on the contrary,
the impression was given that its
location was accounted for up to
the time that it was recovered by
defense attorneys.
Wadleigh Is Accused.
In other words, in the first trial,
the whole reliance was apparently
placed on the testimony Of Mr..
and Mrs. Hiss that they did not
have the machine in the crucial
..~,o5 ~ h6oroh ond Anril 1929.