as possible, be made available for the inspection of the entire committee.

Admiral INGLIS. Yes, sir; they will, sir.

Mr. MURPHY. No other questions, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Ferguson?

Senator FERGUSON. Admiral Inglis, when you received this present data-now, I am talking about the data prior to the MacArthur data-who evaluated it so that you might put it in your statement?

Admiral INGLIS. Commander Hindmarsh and Lieutenant Kurts. who are now sitting at my right elbow, did most of the work on that. Senator FERGUSON. Who else worked on it?

Admiral INGLIS. A Lieutenant Ebb also worked on these and much of the source material was in the form of translations received from the Southwestern Pacific area headquarters.

Senator FERGUSON. Was it evaluated out in the field at [521] all?

Admiral INGLIS. It received an evaluation in the field and then a second evaluation here in Washington.

Senator FERGUSON. Now, what evaluation are we getting in your statement, the one that was made in the field or the one that was made here?

Admiral INGLIS. Fundamentally you are getting the evaluation made here. However, there is no conflict of significance between the two evaluations.

Senator FERGUSON. When was it evaluated?

Admiral INGLIS. The people who have been doing this work have been working on it since the middle of June of this year.

Senator FERGUSON. I see by the press that Mr. Byrnes, Secretary of State, made a statement using some of this information. Do you know who evaluated it for Mr. Byrnes?

Let the record show Admiral Inglis is conferring with his aides. The CHAIRMAN. He might also give the names of his aides and their qualifications, that he conferred with.

Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Admiral INGLIS. The evalution which has been presented to the committee, that is, the evaluation before it was affected by the last two documents, in substance was [522] presented to the Secretary of the Navy-I mean the Secretary of State, some time ago.

Senator FERGUSON. I notice also by the press that the Secretary of the Navy used a certain amount of this data. Who evaluated his information?

Admiral INGLIS. He received a copy of the same document that was presented to the Secretary of State.

Senator FERGUSON. And when was that document presented to the Secretary of State?

Admiral INGLIS. I haven't got that date at hand, but we can get it. Senator Ferguson.

Senator FERGUSON. Would you be able to get the document itself that was given to the Secretary of State as well as to the Secretary of the Navy?

Admiral INGLIS. Yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Counsel General Mitchell, will you get that then for the committee?

Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.1

1 See Hearings, Part 11, p. 5352.

Senator FERGUSON. Now, I will ask you, Admiral, when these gentlemen, your aides here, evaluated this information did they use the diplomatic messages between Japan and America?

Admiral INGLIS. No, sir. I want to make that quite clear, that none of the material contained in this presenta- [523] tion was obtained from crypt analytical sources.

Senator FERGUSON. That was not my question. Did they use in order that they may evaluate the evidence that they obtained from the Japanese prisoners and evidence that they obtained from maps, and so forth, did they also check it with the diplomatic messages? Admiral INGLIS. No, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you know as an intelligence officer how you could evaluate that and not check it with the diplomatic messages from Japan?

Admiral INGLIS. We evaluated it by checking with all of the source material which we had available. We did not have available to us the crypt analytic material which the Senator has just mentioned.

[524] Senator FERGUSON. In other words, you did not have in your possession, when you evaluated this for the committee, Japanese messages concerning military installations, ship movements, and so forth, which is the instrument with the yellow cover on it?

Admiral INGLIS. No, sir; we did not have them.

Senator FERGUSON. It is Exhibit No. 2 in this case. Have you ever had this?

Admiral INGLIS. No, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Then you made this evaluation of the Japanese information from prisoners when you had in your files at least, direct evidence from the Japanese officials, and did not use this official information to evaluate evidence?

Admiral INGLIS. No, sir.

Mr. MITCHELL. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that Exhibit 2 does not contain any Japanese intercepts; this Exhibit 2 contains messages passing to and from Tokyo.

Senator FERGUSON. I appreciate that, but they gave an outline of the source of their information, and they intimated that certain sources were used, and certain sources were not used.

Now, I want to refer you to this instrument which is marked "Exhibit No. 2," and call your attention to page 22. Have you got a copy of it?

15251 Admiral INGLIS. I have not got a copy of it. I have never seen a copy. Those messages were not in the files of Naval Intelligence. Senator FERGUSON. Will you refer to page 22?

Admiral INGLIS. If I may have a copy; yes, sir.

Mr. MITCHELL. Here is one.

Mr. GESELL. What page is that?

Senator FERGUSON. Page 22.

(A document was handed to Admiral Inglis.)

Senator FERGUSON. This is from Honolulu to Tokyo, December 3,

1941.

Admiral INGLIS. I have it before me.

Senator FERGUSON. You have it?

Admiral INGLIS. Yes.

Senator FERGUSON. Now, will you make inquiry to see whether or not that instrument was not translated in the rough and in the posses

sion of the Navy by 1: 30 and not [526] later than 2 o'clock on December 6, 1941? Do you know whether that is a fact?

Admiral INGLIS. I do not understand your question, Senator Ferguson.

Senator FERGUSON. I want to know from your aides whether or not that instrument was not translated in the rough and in the possession of the Navy at 1:30 and not later than 2 o'clock on December 6, 1941? Admiral INGLIS. I cannot answer that question, Senator. Senator FERGUSON. I am trying to ask if your aides know.

Admiral INGLIS. They cannot either. If you will let me complete my answer?

Senator FERGUSON. I will let you complete it.

Admiral INGLIS. Sir?

Senator FERGUSON. I will let you complete it. Go ahead.

Admiral INGLIS. I would like to say all of this crypt analytical material comes in the cognizance of Naval Communications, rather than Naval Intelligence. There are several witnesses who are listed to appear before the committee who can give first-hand knowledge or evidence along this line. I cannot.

Senator FERGUSON. You cannot?

Admiral INGLIS. No.

[527] Senator FERGUSON. Look on page 23, to the KGMB want ads. Was that considered by the evaluators when you gave your statement?

Admiral INGLIS. I am informed that the material was obtained by us from another source.

Senator FERGUSON. As a matter of fact, it was obtained from the Army staff here in Virginia, was it not, at Fort Knox?

Admiral INGLIS. Our source was a man by the name of Otto Kuhn who was interrogated on this subject.

Senator FERGUSON. He was later tried, was he not, in Hawaii?
Admiral INGLIS. I understand that he was; yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Now you say that the Navy's source of this information was Kuhn and not a translation?

Admiral INGLIS. I say that the source available to my staff was Kuhn.

Senator FERGUSON. Kuhn was not apprehended until after the 7th of December, was he?

Admiral INGLIS. That is correct, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Did your staff use that instrument or that information in evaluating the Japanese information?

Admiral INGLIS. It was considered. That was considered, but it was also understood from another source that that [528] particular scheme or system was not actually used, and therefore it was not considered.

Senator FERGUSON. Give us that source.

Mr. MURPHY. While they are looking for it, will the gentleman yield for one observation?

Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Mr. MURPHY. As I understand it, the exhibit says it was not translated until 12/11/41, and then in parentheses (7). I do not know what that (7) means.

Senator FERGUSON. We will develop later it was translated on the 6th at noon.

Admiral INGLIS. In reply to the Senator's question I would like to quote from a carbon copy of an enclosure to an endorsement which is contained in a letter received through naval channels originating in the Fourteenth Naval District.

On page 10, paragraph 13, of this carbon copy appears the following:

The KGMB want ads morning programs from November 24 to December 8, 1941, were checked by FBI Honolulu with negative results in locating any coded phrases regarding the Chinese rug, chicken farm, or beauty-parlor operator. It appears unlikely that phrases regarding the German attaché, had they appeared on this program during the period in question, would have gone unnoticed by the agency conducting that investigation.

[529] Senator FERGUSON. Did they examine the original broadcasts or scripts?

Admiral ÎNGLIS. I do not know, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Do we understand then there is quite a bit of controversy on these items you have given us? Are we to understand that you evaluated it without using any of these codes or the coded messages?

Admiral INGLIS. That is correct, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. And we also understand that they did not use in any way diplomatic messages?

Admiral INGLIS. That is correct, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Do you know whether more weight was given to the information obtained from the so-called prisoners of war than was given to the MacArthur information, that came directly from the Navy in Tokyo?

Admiral INGLIS. There was very little conflict between the two. Where there was conflict, all I can say is we resolved the conflict and gave the material which in our judgment most accurately presented the case.

Senator FERGUSON. Now will you look on page 452 of our transcript-I will withdraw that.

Are the ads that you cannot substantiate from the same evidence as this message "Climb Mount Niitaka"?

Admiral INGLIS. Are the ads from the same evidence as [530] the message "Climb Mount Niitaka"?

Senator FERGUSON. Yes.

Admiral INGLIS. What is the Senator's question?

Senator FERGUSON. Is it from the same source as the rug ads and the climb the mountain?

Admiral INGLIS. It is mentioned in the same document but not from the same source.

Senator FERGUSON. Isn't it in the same interview?

Admiral INGLIS. No, Sir. The want ad, the paragraph about the KGMB want ads is derived from the FBI investigation in Honolulu. The "Climb Mount Nittaka" material is derived from one prisoner of war and one Japanese who was interrogated after VJ-day.

[531] Senator FERGUSON. Was not the clue, though, from the same source, the information that you were investigating?

Admiral INGLIS. The pilot Shiga, who was interrogated at Sasibo, and the report of his interrogation contained in this last document which we just received Friday, did mention a want ad code.

Senator FERGUSON. He mentioned the want ad code, did he not?
Admiral INGLIS. Yes.

Senator FERGUSON. Now, why did you accept, at his suggestion, the climbing of the mountain and not the want ad proposition? Do you have any reason for that?

Admiral INGLIS. Yes, sir. The item about climbing the mountain was also mentioned by another Japanese prisoner of war, and had some confirmation. The item about the KGMB want ads had been investigated by the FBI in Honolulu and could not be confirmed. In fact, the information seemed to be negative. Therefore, the "climb Mount Niitaka" was included and the KGMB want ads was not.

Senator Ferguson. In the United States Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean Area Weekly Intelligence, the one you gave to the committee, states the information as to climbing Mount Niitaka was in Order No. 1, combined fleet secret order No. 1, that is, that was his memory of it?

[532] Admiral INGLIS. We have no positive evidence of that, Senator. If I may give you as complete a story as possible on that, I would like to do it, at this point, sir, on this "climb Mount Niitaka." Senator FERGUSON. Will you wait until I get through, and then give your version of it.

Admiral INGLIS. Certainly.

Senator FERGUSON. Will you look on page 11 of the analysis there of the lieutenant, and see what he says about this Mount Niitaka? Admiral INGLIS. What page?

Senator FERGUSON. Page 11.

Admiral INGLIS. Can you identify the document?

Mr. MITCHELL. Page 11 of what document, Senator?

Senator FERGUSON. I am trying to point it out. There [indicating].

Admiral INGLIS. Paragraph 14, about the Japanese consulate general?

Senator FERGUSON. No; paragraph 15.
Admiral INGLIS. I have that, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. Will you read it?
Admiral INGLIS (reading):

Inasmuch as Shiga's information was reportedly given to him by another officer aboard the Akagi following the attack, its accuracy is subject to some doubt. [533] Senator FERGUSON. And who says that? Is that Lieutenant Peterson of the United States Navy?

Admiral INGLIS. R. H. Peterson, lieutenant, United States Navy Reserve, signed that report; yes, sir.

Senator FERGUSON. With that doubt in mind, then, and with MacArthur's information as to order No. 1, do you still place much credence to that information? Order No. 1, as far as the MacArthur information is concerned, does not include that at all, does it? Admiral INGLIS. No, sir. We still think

Senator FERGUSON (interposing). Did you analyze it with that in mind?

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, let the witness answer the question. The CHAIRMAN. Let the witness complete his answer.

Senator FERGUSON. All right.

Admiral INGLIS. We still think that the statement made in the presentation is the best estimate that we can make, sir, because it was partially confirmed from another source.