History on Hold

Material selectively released from Soviet intelligence archives some years ago, along with some declassified U.S. government documents, has thrown fresh light on the extent of Moscow’s espionage activities in the United States in the 1930s and ‘40s and helped confirm the identities of some of its agents. But a great deal of information that could further illuminate the murky events of the period remains locked away, much of it long past the time when its release could damage national security or the well-being of living persons.

Now a federal judge is doing what he can to end this anachronism. In a bold and welcome ruling, U.S. District Judge Peter K. Leisure has ordered the release of thousands of pages of grand jury testimony related to the half-century-old Alger Hiss case.

Hiss was a high-level State Department employee accused by Whittaker Chambers, a onetime Communist underground agent, of delivering sensitive official documents to him in the 1930s. Hiss denied the accusation, but a New York grand jury indicted him for perjury in 1948--the statute of limitations on espionage having expired--and he subsequently was convicted and served three years in prison. To the day he died in 1996, Hiss denied any guilt.

Controversy over the case reverberated for decades, not least because of the role played by Richard M. Nixon, a young California congressman and member of the Committee on Un-American Activities when Chambers made his allegation against Hiss. Committee hearings initially left the issue unresolved. But Nixon believed Hiss was guilty and doggedly pursued the matter, even bending the line between the legislative and judicial branches by testifying before a New York grand jury investigating Soviet espionage. Nixon’s role in the case made his political career. He went on to be elected senator and vice president before becoming president.

Judge Leisure cited Nixon’s testimony when, in response to a petition from several scholarly groups, he ruled that the public has a significant interest in release of the grand jury records. “It takes on added historical significance when the witness later becomes president of the United States,” the judge said.

The Justice Department argued that any exception to the rules safeguarding the secrecy of grand jury proceedings would be inimical to the processes of justice. But the passage of time weakens that claim. The sanctity of grand jury proceedings won’t be diminished by releasing proceedings from 50 years ago. As one of the lawyers who argued for release of the record put it, “people have a right to their history.”

The government might appeal Leisure’s ruling. If it does, it will continue to stand on the wrong side of the issue. The evidence against Hiss has always been compelling, and recent disclosures, including decoded U.S. intercepts of Soviet intelligence messages, have made it even more so. Grand jury records could fill in much more of the story.

“The material should languish on archival shelves, behind locked doors, no longer,” wrote Leisure. The Justice Department would do well to concede the integrity of that opinion.