(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Institute of Pacific Relations. Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eighty-second Congress, first[-second] session .."




t 



a^ 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION 

OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER 

INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS 

USQ«r3€«-^. S'^f^TPF THE 

'^ COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAEY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-SECOND CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



PART 9 



FEBRUARY 26, 27, 28, 29, MARCH 1, AND 3, 1952 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




B€€ 



34 r9b2 , <> I ^ 



■' kK 



UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
88348 WASHINGTON : 1952 








COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PAT McCARRAN, Nevada, Chairman 

HARLEY M. KILGORE, West Virginia ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota 

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Wasliiugton HOMER FERGUSON, Micliigan 

HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Maryland WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana 

ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 

WILLIS SMITH, North Carolina ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey 

J. G. SouKWiNE, Counsel 



Internal Security Subcommittee 

PAT McCARRAN, Nevada, Chairman 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan 

HERBERT R. CCONOR, Maryland WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana 

WILLIS SMITH, North Carolina ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 



Subcommittee Investigating the Institute of Pacific Relations 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman 
PAT McCARRAN, Nevada HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan 

Robert Mobbis, Special Counsel 
Benjamin Mandel, Director of Research 
II 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of— P-^ses 

Owen Lattimore 2897-3275 

m 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1952 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal 
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The subcommittee met at 2 : 30 p. m., pursuant to notice, in room 
424 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Pat McCarran (chairman 
of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators McCarran (presiding), O'Conor, Smith, Fergu- 
son, Jenner, and Watkins. 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, committee counsel; and Robert 
Morris, subcommittee counsel. 

The Chairman. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The witness will please rise and be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are to give before this 
subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States 
Senate will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do. 

The Chairman. Let me say at the outset as I have said before, 
that pictures might be taken before the hearings but not during the 
hearings. We do not think it is best to annoy or interrupt the wit- 
nesses in their testimony. 

When the Members of the Senate became members of this com- 
mittee, both the chairman of the committee and the members of the 
committee individually and collectively fully realized that we were 
to be and would be the targets of invective and disparaging remarks 
and statements. Our anticipation in that regard has been fully car- 
ried out. The Daily Worker has devoted many columns to its con- 
demnation of this committee, its members, and the manner in which 
it has operated. Every Communist in America has taken opportu- 
nity to cast invective and discouraging and disparaging remarks with 
reference to this committee and its membership. We were fully ad- 
vised before we undertook this task that such would be the course 
and procedure. It is not at all out of line with the general procedure 
of the Communist Party and Communists generally in the world. 

For many months one of the great jurists of America, Judge 
Medina, sat in trial during all kinds of condemnatory remarks and 
insulting expressions. He dealt with the matter at the close of that 
great trial. 

A statement has been filed today by the witness. The ticker shortly 
after noon announced that that statement was available to those who 

2897 



2898 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

saw fit to read it and it was at the office of the attorney for the wit- 
ness. The press has that statement now. Of course, that statement 
and its remarks are no longer privileged, as that term is known in the 
law. The witness must be responsible for the full gravity of his 
remarks produced in that statement. In that statement there is car- 
ried out the same policy as has been carried out against this commit- 
tee. Intemperate and provocative expressions are there set out and 
elaborated upon. 

This committee could exercise its rights. We could deny that state- 
ment the right to become a part of the record. We realize that this 
is a country of free speech, that that is one of our great heritages, 
and we propose to see to it that it is carried out here today. Not- 
withstanding the insulting and offensive remarks that appear in the 
record, the statement made by the witness now under oath, he may 
proceed with his statement with the understanding that from time to 
time as he goes along counsel for the committee will interrogate him. 

You may proceed, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN LATTIMORE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 

COUNSEL, ABE FOETAS 

Mr. FoRTAS. Senator, before the witness proceeds, may I identify 
myself on the record. I am Abe Fortas, of Arnold, Fortas & Porter, 
here as counsel for Owen Lattimore. Our address is 1200 Eighteenth 
Street NW., of this city. 

Senator, I should like to ask you to advise me of the rights and 
privileges of attorneys. I have examined your record of these hear- 
ings and I find that you yourself made the following statement on 
July 25, 1951 

The Chairman. What I said is not necessary. I can tell you in a 
minute, Mr. Fortas. 

I did tell yon privately and I will tell you now on the record that 
you will be permitted to remain here. You will not be permitted 
to testify and you will not be permitted to suggest answers to ques- 
tions. When the witness seeks your counsel he will have opportunity 
to obtain your counsel. 

Mr. Fortas. Thank yon, Senator. May I ask whether I am per- 
mitted to object to questions? 

The Chairman. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Might I ask counsel if this press release was 
issued from your office? 

Mr. FoRTAS. Senator, I was out of town yesterday, and my knowl- 
edge of it is that Mrs. Lattimore delivered copies to counsel to the 
committee at 1 o'clock on yesterday, that thereafter copies were made 
available to the press and copies were available in my office for mem- 
bers of the press. 

Senator Ferguson. So that your office in effect circulated this state- 
ment ? 

Mr. Fortas. Well, you are using a term with legal connotations. 

Senator Ferguson. You are a lawyer. 

Mr. Fortas. Yes, but I have not considered that question, and I 
would not be prepared to answer it at tliis moment. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you read the statement ? 

Mr. Fortas. I have. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2899 

Senator Ferguson. Did you prepare it or help to prepare it? 

Mr. FoRTAS. I consulted with Mr. Lattimore while it was being pre- 
pared ; yes, sir ; and I consulted extensively. 

Senator Ferguson. You knew it was to be used and circulated prior 
to the reading of it in this hearing ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. I certainly did, and I see nothing improper about it 
and nothing unconventional about it. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you have any knowledge about the facts? 

Mr. FoRTAs. I have no personal knowledge aside from the usual 
sources that a lawyer knows, of course, Senator. As you know, Sen- 
ator, a lawyer never vouches for statements when he has no personal 
knowledge of the facts. 

Senator Ferguson. That is the next question, as to whether or not 
you approved the statement. , . 

Mr. Fortas. You know what a lawyer does, and you are a distin- 
guished lawyer yourself. 

The Chadrman. You could answer that question, Mr. Fortas. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you or did you not approve the statement? 

Mr. Fortas. From a legal point of view, absolutely ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. That is all. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. If I might intervene for just a moment before Mr. 
Lattimore starts reading his statement, I have, I think, just three or 
four preliminary questions. Have you identified yourself for tliis 
record, sir ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I did in executive session. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would you for the purpose of this public session 
just give your name and address to the reporter? 

Mr. Lattimore. My name is Owen Lattimore, and my address is 

Kuxton 4, Md. 

Mr. Sourwine. I think we can dispense with the other formalities, 
Mr. Chairman, and let the witness begin with his statement. 

The Chairman. Very well, Mr. Lattimore ; you may proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senators, I have asked for this public hearing be- 
cause your proceedings have resulted in serious damage to my repu- 
tation as an objective scholar and patriotic citizen, to the Institute of 
IPacific Relations with which I have been connected, and to our Gov- 
ernment's Foreign Service personnel and the conduct of its foreign 
policy. 

Mr. Sourwine. If the Chair will excuse me, please, we have here 
the letter by which Mr. Lattimore asked for a hearing, the chairman's 
reply, Mr. Lattimore's subsequent request for a postponement, and the 
chairman's reply ; and if the witness will identify these two letters I 
suggest that those should go into the record at this point, as supple- 
mentary to the statement of the witness that he asked to be heard. 

(^^Hi'ereupon the documents were shown to the witness.) 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. That letter of November 6 is your original request 
to be heard ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Lattuviore. I think so ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. May those go into the record ? 



2900 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

The Chairman. Those may be in the record. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits 459A, B, C, D," 
and are as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 459A 

The Johns Hopkins University, 
The Walter Hines Page School of International Relations, 

Office of the Director, 
Baltimore, Md., November 6, 1951. 
Hon. Pat McCarran, 

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Senator McCarran : It has repeatedly been reported in the press that 
your subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee has promised that I will 
me given an opportunity to refute publicly the false and slanderous allegations 
that have been made about me before your subcommittee. Months have now 
gone by without my being given this opportunity, and I am nov? informed that 
your subcommittee will hold no more public hearings until January. This long 
delay greatly increases the injury done to me. 

I trust tbat you will notify me at an early date when I can expect to have a 
public hearing. It will, of course, take me at least a week to make arrangements 
and preparation for the hearing, and I should therefore appreciate as much 
advance notice as possible. 
Yours sincerely, 

[S] Owen Lattimore. 



Owen Lattimore. 



0L:c. 



Exhibit No. 459B 



November 10, 1951. 



Mr. Owen Lattimore, 

Walter Hines Page School of International Relations, 
The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 

Dear Mr. Lattimore: Your letter of November 6 has been forwarded to me 
here. 

The committee had been planning to call you as a witness at the convenience 
of the committee. Now that you have, in the letter above referred to, requested 
an opportunity to be heard, an effort will be made to hear you at your conven- 
ience. You are, however, quite correct in your understanding that there will be 
no more public hearings until January. 

You will be given, as you request, at least a week's advance notice of the date 
at which you will be called to appear before the committee. 
Sincerely, 

[S] Pat McCarran. 



Exhibit No. 459 G 

The Johns Hopkins University, 
the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations, 

Office of the Director, 
Baltimore, Md., December 20, 1951. 
Hon. Pat McCarran, 

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, 

Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator McCarran : On November 6, I wrote you to inquire as to 
the date when your subcommittee might afford me a public hearing, and on 
November 10, you replied stating that an effort would be made to hear me at my 
convenience, but that there would be no more public hearings until January. 
You also stated that I would be given at least a week's advance notice of the 
date on which I would be called to appear. 

You may remember that I appeared before your subcommitteee on July 13 in 
response to your subpena. 

I have been invited to lecture in London before the Royal Geographical Society 
and the Royal Central Asian Society. The lecture before the Royal Geographical 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2901 

Society has been scheduled for January 14. The lecture before the Royal Central 
Asian Society was scheduled to commence on December 19, but this date has been 
postponed because of a delay in my date of departure from the United States. 

Mrs. Lattimore and I plan to proceed to Loudon by air, leaving here on Decem- 
ber 27, and to return about January 20. I shall be available to your committee 
at any time thereafter, but I should like, as I indicated in my letter of November 
6, to have a week's notice of the exact time when I am to be called so that I may 
complete preparations for my appearance. This would mean that I could appear 
before your committee at any time beginning January 28. 

I continue to be eager to testify at a public session of your committee, and I 
hope that my trip to England will not inconvenience you. 
Yours sincerely, 

[s] Owen Lattimore. 
Owen Lattimore. 



Exhibit No. 459 D 



December 28, 1951. 



Mr. Owen Lattimore, 

The Johns Hopkins University, 

Baltimore, Md. 
Dear Mr. Lattimore: This will acknowledge your letter of December 20 in 
which you informed me of your invitation to lecture in London before the Royal 
Geoegraphical Society and the Royal Central Asian Society. 

Your trip to England will not inconvenience the subcommittee in any way, and 
you may complete your plans as scheduled. 

I appreciate your desire to testify at public sessions of our committee as your 
testimony will be very interesting. We wiU schedule your appearance sometime 
after your return to this country. 
Sincerely, 

[S] Pat McCarran. 

Mr. SouR^VTNE. In the opening paragraph of your statement, have 
you expressed the four points which give you concern with regard to 
the conduct of these hearings ? 

Mr. Lattimore. These are four introductory points, and I don't 
know whether you would consider some of the supplementary material 
that comes later to be separate points or not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Have you expressed those points in the order of 
their primary interest to you — that is first yourself, second the IPR, 
and third the Foreign Service, and fourth the United States foreign 
policy ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I don't think I thought of it that way when 
I drafted it. On the whole I can say "No," it is rather the reverse 
order. 

Mr. Sourwine. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. The impression has been assiduously conveyed in 
your proceedings 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you mean by "assiduously conveyed" to make the 
charge that the committee has intended to convey a certain impres- 
sion? 

Mr. Lattimore. I mean that witness after witness before this com- 
mittee has attempted to convey this impression and that no witnesses 
have been asked any question that might test their veracity. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you mean to charge, sir, that the committee 
has intended to coiivey a particular impression ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I cannot answer for what is in the minds of the 
committee. 



r^ 



2992 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. We are asking- you what is in your mind, sir, what 
you intended to convey by the use of that phrase. 

Mr. Laitimore. I intended to convey by the use of that phrase 
exactly what is stated here. 

Senator Ferguson. Might I inquire? Do you include yourself as 
one of the witnesses among those that you have mentioned? 

Mr. Lattimore. You mean attempted to convey that I am a Com- 
munist or Communist sympathizer? 

Senator Ferguson. I did not mention Communist or Communist 
sympathizer. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have been heard once in executive session. 

Senator Ferguson. You say no vv^itness has been questioned. 

Mr. Lattimore. None of these witnesses referred to here. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, were you questioned? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was questioned in executive session some 7 or 8 
months ago, and I have no transcript of that session. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever ask to see the transcript? 

Mr. Lattimore. I asked to see the transcript afterward, to go over 
it and see if there were any mistakes in it. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you go over it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. So you had the transcript, and you knew what 
its contents were ? 

I\Ir. Lattimore. I read the transcript about 7 months ago, and nat- 
urally my memory of it is not very fresh now. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you make any notes about it? 

JSIr. Lattimore. No ; I made no notes when I read the transcript. 

Senator Watkins. Do you have an extra copy of your statement, so 
that we may follow it when you make it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know if I have any more. 

Mr. FoRTAs. Tliere were copies delivered for each member of the 
committee, and the copies that were brought here have all been dis- 
tributed to the press. 

Senator Ferguson. How many were distributed to the press, Mr. 
Fort as? 

Mr. FoRTAS. I haven't any idea. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know how many you had made, Mr. 
Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir ; I don't. 

Senator Watkins. It is easier to follow you if we have a statement. 

Mr. SouRWTNE. If we might get back to this question of your 
phrase, "assiduously conveyed," what did you mean by that word 
"assiduously"? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I believe the Latin etymology of the word 
probably means to sit down and stick at. 

Mr. Souravine. It comes from "assiduus," doesn't it? Did you 
use it in that sense? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the sense in which I used it, 

Mr. Sourwine. Go ahead, sir. 

IVfr. Lattimore. The impression has been assiduously conveyed in 
your proceedings that I am a Communist or a Communist sympa- 
thizer or dupe 

Mr. Souravine. How has that been conveyed, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, the record is full of it, sir. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2903 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. You are making the charge, sir, and has anyone 
on the committee conveyed that impression, or has it been conveyfed 
only by witnesses testifying here under oath ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think some of the leading questions of members 
of the committee could be so interpreted, perhaps. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Are you interpreting the questions asked by the 
committee as intended to convey that you were a Communist or Com- 
munist sympathizer or dupe ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In writing this opening part of my statement, I 
was trying to convey an over-all impression of hearings that had been 
going on for 8 months or so in which hostile evidence, evidence hostile 
to me and others, has been piled up, and at this present time I am 
attempting to deal with that accumulation of many months. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire there as to 
whether or not the witness believes that it is an important subject 
to inquire as to whether or not an institution that is giving informa- 
tion to the public has been penetrated by Communists or Communist 
sympathizers ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The subject is obviously important, but as you will 
find later in this statement, I raise the point that previous clarifica- 
tion as concerns myself was rather copiously provided 2 years ago 
before the Tydings committee, and has been completely disregarded 
in the hearings before this committee. 

Seiiator Ferguson. Do you think that this committee should take 
the record of the Tydings committee and close its proceedings and not 
conduct any examination; is that what you are asking? 

]SIr. Lattimore. That is not what I am asking. 

Senator-FERGUSON. "\'\'liy do you mention it, then? 

Mr. Lattimore. I mention it because I think that it is relevant to 
any such inquiiy, and yet — especially as far as I myself am con- 
cerned — and yet no reference has been made to it. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you claim that that was a full and complete 
examination of the question of the penetration of Communists or 
Communist sympathizers into the Institute of Pacific Eelations ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am claiming that it was relevant to me per- 
sonally, and my connections with the Institute of Pacific Eelations 
were included in that inquiry. 

Senator Ferguson. And, therefore, this committee should not have 
gone into the question of your relations with the Institute of Pacific 
Eelations? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that the question of my relations with the 
Institute of Pacific Eelations might have been brought up with ref- 
erence to what had gone before. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, do I understand, then, that you think that 
this committee should not have gone into that question here ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. I am merely suggesting that a more fair way 
of going into the question, as far as I myself am concerned, would 
have been to maintain at least the continuity of the record between 
the extensive replies that I gave before the Tydings committee and 
the allegations that have been made here. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you figure that you were cross-examined by 
the Tydings committee? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do. 



2904 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. Completely cross-examined; you think all of 
the facts were brought out? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I think that Senator Hickenlooper went into 
a f^reat deal of detail over many hours. 

Senator Ferguson. Did the Tydings committee have the records 
that wei-e obtained by this committee from up in Concord in Massa- 
chusetts? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; it didn't. 

Senator Ferguson. Then do you think that they could have ex- 
ami)ied this problem of the Institute of Pacific Relations, without 
those records? 

Mr. Lattimore. The only point I am making, Senator, is that no 
continuity or connection has been established in the hearings before 
this committee with the inquiry that was conducted by the Tydings 
committee, and I am not suggesting that one should have been a sub- 
stitute for the other. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, do you not think, from one of j^our an- 
SAvers here, that you have indicated that this committee had gone out 
of its way in an unfair manner to conduct these hearings about the 
Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Latt'imore. I am merely saying that as far as I, myself, am 
concerned, I think the committee would have been fairer if it had 
taken into account the record of the Tydings hearings. 

Senator Ferguson. On the question of the activities of the Institute 
of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Lattimore. On the question of myself and any connection be- 
tween me and the institute. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, you have stated that the impression 
has been assiduously conveyed, and you have explained what you 
meant by that in the proceedings of this committee, that you are a 
Communist or a Communist sympathizer or dupe. Have witnesses 
before this committee testified that you were a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have witnesses before this committee testified that 
you were a Communist sympathizer? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Have witnesses before this committee testified that 
you were a dupe ? 

Mr. Lattumore. I think one or two witnesses have suggested that I 
was either a sympathizer or a dupe. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember who any of those witnesses were? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have read through such a mass of this stuff re- 
cently that I am afraid my memory is not very clear on many of these 
details. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall w^hether, in fact, a witness did so 
testify, or whether you simply added that yourself as a third or pos- 
sible alternative? 

Mr. LAT'riMORE. Oh, no, it was based on a definite impression from 
my reading it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. You see, I have been working on this for a long 
time, I have been making notes as I went along, and the notes were 
eventually incorporated into this statement. But in view of the kind 
of work, that goes over and over a subject, you sometimes have the 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2905 

note that establishes a particular point, but your mind loses the con- 
nection with which the point was originally made. I am satisfied with 
the point, however. 

The impression has been assiduously conveyed m your proceedmgs 
that I am a Communist or a Conmiunist sympathizer or dupe ; that I 
master minded the Institute of Pacific Relations 

Mr. Sour WINE. At that point, sir, to what extent did you have to 
do with the conduct of the affairs of the Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Lattimore. During my period of employment by the Institute 
of Pacific Relations from 1934 to 1941, 1 was responsible solely for the 
editing of the quarterly magazine, Pacific Affairs. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know that Mr. Dennett, a former secretary 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations, had testified that you and Mr. 
Jessup were the two principal leaders of the affairs of that institute ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am aware tl^.at he so testified, and I would dispute 
the accuracy of his testimony. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. The impression has been assiduously conveyed in 
your proceedings that I am a Communist or a Communist syinpathizer 
or dupe ; that I master-minded the Institute of Pacific Relations ; that 
the Institute of Pacific Relations and I master-minded the far-eastern 
experts of the State Department^ 

Mr. SouRwiNE. If you will pardon me, Mr. Lattimore, can you say 
that the Institute of Pacific Relations and you had no influence upon 
the far-eastern experts of the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. By the w^ay, what is your name, sir? 

Mr. Sourwine. Sourwine, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. I hate replying in the blank. 

]\Ir. Sourwine. I was present at the executive sessions, and I met 
you, sir, at that time. 

Mr. Lattimore. The publications of the Institute of Pacific Rela- 
tions were available to all and sundry, including 

The Chairman. Now, you are not answering the question. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am leading up to my answer. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it is a necessary introduction. 

Including members of the Government. In the years when I was 
active in the institute, the number of far-eastern experts and people 
primarily interested in the Far East was relatively small. So far as I 
know, practically all of them either belonged to the institute or read 
its publications. 

ISIr. Sourwine. Are you including in that statement the far-eastern 
experts of the State Department ? 

^Ir. Latti:more. I am including them ; and therefore, it would be my 
assumption that practically all far-eastern personnel, or personnel 
dealing with the Far East, in the Department of State, would read the 
publications of the institute. 

Mr. Sourwine. And most of them, you say, were members of the 
institute? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe some of them were. 

Mr. Sourwine. Didn't you say most of them ? 

Mr. Lattoiore. I said most people interested in, and how far that 
includes the Government personnel, I have no way of knowing. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did it include some? 



2906 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore, The records of the institute would doubtless show. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know that it did include some of the far- 
eastern experts of the State Department, that is, the membersliip of 
the IPR did include some of those experts ? 

JMr. Lattimore. I know in general that it included some, and I 
couldn't name you anyone definitely. 

JMr. SouRwiNE. Well, now, let us get back to the original question : 
Can you say that the Institute of Pacific Relations and you had no 
influence on the far-eastern experts of the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, the Avay in which I was trying to answer the 
question was that I assume that those who read the publications of the 
institute formed their own opinions about it, but it is obviously impos- 
sible for me to answer on behalf of an anonymous Mr, X in the State 
Department whether he personally was influenced by the work of the 
institute, and if so, how much. 

Senator Ferguson. Might I ask a question there? Did you intend 
to influence the people in the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. The program of the Institute of Pacific Relations 
was perfectly clear, Senator. It was to make available on the mar- 
ket, the market of ideas, the most accurate information that it could 
assemble on the subject of the Far East, so that those who were inter- 
ested could use that information as they themselves saw best. 

The Chairman. Now, I would like to have you answer the question. 

Senator Ferguson. Answer my question : Did you intend to influ- 
ence the State Department? 

Mr. Laitimore. We intended to contribute to the general fund of 
knowledge about the Far East. Any question of a particular intent 
to interest the State Department as a policy-making organ of the Gov- 
ernment was, to the extent of my knowledge, never dreamed of. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, did you furnish pamphlets and booklets 
and books to the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. I didn't personally. 

Senator Ferguson. I mean the institute. 

Mr. Lattimore. You would have to ask someone in the institute who 
was in charge of distribution. 

May I say that the Foreign Policy Association and other organiza- 
tions interested in foreign policj^, I believe that the general practice is 
to sell the publications; and then, in order to promote the sale of pub- 
lications, to send free copies to people who might become likely sub- 
scribers. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you furnish free copies of the Pacific Af- 
fairs, of which you were the editor ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I occasionally sent out free copies ; yes, sir. 
Senator Ferguson. To the State Department or any officials in the 
State Department ? 

Mr. Laitimore. I don't recall whether they were included or not. 
Senator Ferguson. Then when you say you did not want to influ- 
ence the State Department officials 

Mr. Lattimore. As far as I was concerned, the intention was to 

provide information for those who were interested in the belief, which 

I thhik is a good old American belief, that out of a free market of 

information and ideas, the best will eventually win out in competition. 

Senator Ferguson. You figured yours was the best ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2907 

Mr. Lati'imore. We furnished many kinds of opinion, as well as 
information. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you would not say it was good, bad, and 
indifferent opinion ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I would say that to the best of our ability we 
always produced well-informed opinion. 

Senator Ferguson. That would be the best? 

Mr. Lattimore. It was impossible to say what would be the best, 
because the Far East then, as now, was an area of controversy, and 
equally well-informed people might come to different conclusions from 
the same data. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, if such was the purpose, includ- 
ing the making available to the State Department, with possibly hav- 
ing some effect on their policy, was any effort made to prevent Com- 
munists from having any voice in the conduct of the Institute of 
Pacific Eelations ? 

Mr. Lattimore. First, I would like to be a little more precise about 
your wording, "to make available to the State Department," which 
implies an exceptional interest in getting the State Department 

Senator O'Conor. If it were not exceptional, it was not kept from 
the State Department ; the information that you were making avail- 
able to others, you certainly had a right to assume would be available 
to the State Department. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is why I say that I prefer a wording "to make 
available," rather than "to make available to the State Department." 

Senator O'Conor. Does that satisfy you, that it was available to 
the State Department ? 

Mr. Lattimore. If the wording is that it was as available to the 
State Department as it was to anybody else. 

Senator O'Conor. And that was, of course, your reason for being, 
was it not : to make it generally available ? 

Mr. Lattimore. To make it generally available. 

Senator O'Conor. Now, my question was : What, if any, steps were 
taken during the time that you were there to prevent Communists 
from having voice in the conduct of the affairs of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Lattimore. From 1934 to 1941, as I have stated before, I was 
responsible only for Pacific Affairs, and most of that time that was 
a one-man and a secretary office, and most of the time it was not 
in the United States. I was not responsible for the employment of 
any personnel in New York or elsewhere, and hence not responsible 
for policies of employment. 

Senator O'Conor. I am waiting for you to answer the question. 
Does that complete your answer ? 

The Chairman. I am waiting for an answer. 

Mr. Lattimore. But I was not in a position to have any concern 
with whether Communists were employed or not. 

Senator O'Conor. Are we to understand that you were not inter- 
ested in whether or not Communists participated in the formation of 
opinion and the dissemination of factual information, and are we 
to understand that you were disinterested and indifferent? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. I think that you can understand. Senator, 
simply that the matter never came within my purview. 



2908 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. Did you read Pacific Affairs before it was sent 
out to the public ? 

Mr. Lattimore. As editor, I read everything that went in before it 
went in. 

Senator Ferguson. Then were you not concerned as to whether or 
not pro-Communists were writing for that magazine while you were 
editor ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is a different question, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, answer that one. 

Mr. Lattimore. I was asked about the institute. 

The Chairman. Read the question. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. I think that that can be answered promptly. You 
can answer it categorically. 

Mr. Lattimore. My answer is that I was concerned primarily with 
the qualitj^ of matter that went in. The Soviet Council was one of 
the members of the institute, and naturally I assumed that anything 
contributed by the Soviet Council was contributed by a Communist. 

Senator Ferguson. Therefore, you felt that that would be a colored 
view, if it was contributed by the Communists ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I assumed that any contribution coming from the 
Soviet Union would be in conformity with official Communist 
doctrine. 

Senator Ferguson. And it would be colored? 

Mr. Lattimore. It would be colored according to official Com- 
munist doctrine. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, did you ever ascertain or try to ascertain 
whether or not any writers other than those in the Soviet Union, as 
members of their Government, were putting any articles in the mag- 
azine of which you were the editor? 

IMr. Lattimore. In regard to any contributions other than Soviet 
contributions, if the contribution had struck me as Communist or 
Communist propaganda, I would certainly have gone into the matter. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever go into the matter as to who was 
writing, whether they were Communists or pro-Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. I always went into the matter from the point of 
view of whether the man was well-informed and knew his stuff ; and 
if anything had struck me as Communist propaganda, as such, I would 
certainly have taken up the matter. 

_ Senator Ferguson. Do you think at that time you could have recog- 
nized pro-Communist propaganda? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. Very likely there would be forms of Communist 
propaganda that would get by me. 

Senator Ferguson. You were able to detect Communist propaganda 
at that time? 

IMr. Lattimore. I would not consider myself an expert on the 
subject. 

Senator Ferguson. Then it may be that because of your inexpe- 
rience in Communist propaganda that you did not recognize it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is possible; and it is also pertinent, I think, 
Senator, to remember that in the 1930's there was neither the same 
general understanding of Communist methods of conspiracy and in- 
filtration that there is now, nor the same general apprehension on the 
subject. The occasional publication of left-wing articles was com- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2909 

mon in many journals of repute, and people were not concerned then 
as they are today with precise shades of difference among leftists. 

Senator Ferguson, Is that the reason that you allowed them to ap- 
pear in Pacific Afl'airs, because they were appearing in other mag- 
azines ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My standard in Pacific Affairs was to secure, to 
the best of my ability, well-informed articles. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, now, the question is: Could you detect, 
if you- were not an expert in Communist propaganda, that they were 
not giving you well-informed articles, but they were giving you pure, 
unadulterated Communist propaganda under the label of facts? 

Mr, Lattimore. I think, Senator, that even without being an expert, 
if I had been presented with pure, unadulterated Communist propa- 
ganda I would probably have recognized it. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you say the Pacific Affairs never presented 
any pro-Communist propaganda at the time you were editor? 

ilr. Lattimore. I want to be fair to the people that contributed to 
Pacific Affairs, and I think that I would like to ask you, therefore, 
to define a little more sharply what you mean by "pro-Communist." 

The Chairman. Could you answer the question ? 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what pro-Communist is? I will 
not question you if you do not know what it is. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I should say pro-Communist, particularly 
in the 1930's, might include a very wide range, including some things 
that some people would call pro- Communist and other people would 
not. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, did you recognize any pro-Communist 
propaganda in the magazine while you were editor? 

Mr. Lattimore. Pro-Communist in the sense of, say, promoting 
communism in the United States, you mean ? 

Senator Ferguson. Promoting it in the world. You know that it 
is not a local matter, communism, do you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. We are on the question of promoting. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. I know we are. 

Mr. Sourwine. If I might interrupt, the question which has not 
yet been answered is way back when, if the Senator will excuse me. 

The Chairman. That is not the only question which has not been 
answered, but if we could get to a question that would be answered 
once in a while, it would be very helpful. 

Senator Ferguson. Can you answer the question? 

Mr. Lattimore. What are we driving af right now ? 

Senator Ferguson. I do not know what you are driving at. I am 
trying to get an answer to a question. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, Senator, looking at it from 1952, I would 
find it extremely difficult to lay down a definition of what was pro- 
Communist in 1935 or 1936. 

Senator Ferguson. That was not my question. I will go back and 
ask you another question. Was there or was there not any pro- 
Communist article in your magazine. Pacific Affairs, while you were 
editor ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it would depend on who was making the 
definition of what is pro-Communist. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that the only answer you can give ? 

8S348— 52— pt. 9 2 



2910 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that that is the necessary answer, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, suppose we make it the definition advo- 
catintr international communism. 

Mr. Lattimore. 1 don't think we published anything of that sort. 

Senator Ferguson. You would say there was not anything like that. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, just to bring the record up to date, 
could we go back to \nj question? 

The Chairman. How far back are you going ? 

Mr. Sourwine. This is quite a ways back, Mr, Chairman. 

Mr. Lattimore, can you say that the Institute of Pacific Relations 
and you had no influence on the far-eastern experts of the State De- 
partment ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I cannot state whether we did or not, or how much. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you intend by the statement in this issued state- 
ment here of 3^ours, to convey the impression that the Institute of 
Pacific Kelations and you had not had any influence on the far-eastern 
experts of the State Department ? 

Mr. Latitmore. To my best understanding, the Institute of Pacific 
Eelations never had a policy of influencing the formation of policy 
in the United States Government through influencing personnel. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Now, will you attempt to answer the question : Did 
you intend by the language in this statement, to convey to the commit- 
tee the impression that the Institute of Pacific Relations and you never 
had any influence on the far-eastern experts of the State Department ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I intended to convey that we never had any influ- 
ence that was the outcome of a campaign or policy of influencing the 
State Department. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you intend to convey the impression that you 
never had any influence — period ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether we had any influence on in- 
dividuals in the State Department or not. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you intend to convey the impression by the 
language which you used here, that the Institute of Pacific Relations 
and you had no influence on the far-eastern experts of the State De- 
partment ? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. I intended to convey the impression that we had no 
influence that was the result of a calculated campaign on our part. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, please leave out any question of cal- 
culation, and I am asking you whether you intended to convey to tliis 
committee the impression that the Institute of Pacific Relations and 
you had no influence on the far eastern experts of the State Depart- 
ment? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, my answers have to be within my 
competence to answer. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think it is not within your competence to 
answer that question as to your intent? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have answered as to my intent already. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you disavow the intent to convey, by the lan- 
guage which you used, the impression that the IPR and you had no 
influence on the far eastern experts of the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. I intended to convey that I have no way of measur- 
ing whether the institute had any influence or not. 

Mr. Sourwine. Go ahead with the reading of your statement, sir. 

Senator Smith. Could I ask him a question there? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2911 

Mr. Lattimore, during and after you were editor of the Pacific Af- 
fairs, did you have any conversations with any of the far eastern ex- 
perts in the State Department ? 

Mr. Lattimore. During and after, yes. 

Senator Smith. Well, now, did you get any impression from them 
as to whether or not the articles that you had either edited or had 
printed, or written yourself, had any influence on them ? 

Mr. Lattimore. You are asking me to throw my memory a long 
way back, Senator. 

Senator Smith. Well, of course, I am asking you to do just that, 
if you have a memory about that. 

Mr. Lattimore. I can remember discussing this and that about the 
Far East many times with members of the Department of State. 

Senator Smith. With a good many members? 

Mr. Lattimore. I could not give you a precise answer as to whether 
any article or publication was ever referred to, either one put out by 
the institute or one put out by somebody else. 

Senator Smith. Well, you discussed those articles with various 
men in the Far Eastern Division ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I think you misunderstood me, Senator. I say 
that I discussed far eastern matters, and I don't remember ever dis- 
cussing with a member of the State Department any particular ar- 
ticle, either one with which I had connection or one for which I had 
no responsibility. 

Senator Smith. With how many people in that Department did 
you discuss far eastern affairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would find it impossible to tell you, Senator, how 
many people I ever knew in the Department, much less 

Senator Smith. I did not ask you how many you knew in the De- 
partment. 

Mr. Lattimore. Much less with how many I 

The Chairman. Won't you answer the question of Senator Smith? 
Do 3'ou understand tlie question? If you do not understand it, let 
us know and we will have it repeated. 

Mr. Lattimore. The question is. With how many people did I dis- 
cuss ? And the answer is, I have no way of telling. 

Senator Smith. Well, did you discuss it with many, or few ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Many or few is a subjective variation, and how 
many is "many," and how few is "few" ? 

Senator Smith. I would have thought that you had some idea about 
the difference between "few" and "many," but if you do not have any 
conception of that, I can appreciate that you probably cannot answer 
the question and probably do not want to answer it. Now, what I 
am asking you now is: How many people did you discuss it with 
there ? How many ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. Senator. 

Senator Smith. Do you know the names of some of them that you 
did discuss it with? 

Mr. Latitmore. I could probably recollect some names of people 
with whom I have discussed it. 

Senator Smith. Suppose you give it to us. 

Mr. Lattimore. But I wonder if it would be fair to mention the 
names of some jDeople, and leave the names of other people out ? 



2912 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

The Chairman. Answer the question, if you will. A question has 
been propounded. 

Senator Smith. I am asking for all of them. We do not want you 
to leave out anybody; we do not want you to slight anybody. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I would like to point out that I have lived 
in many countries 

The Chairman. Now, just a minute, Mr. Lattimore. Just a min- 
ute. A question has been propounded to you, and do you care to 
answer it ? 

Read the question to the witness. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Fortas. 

Mr. Fortas. I said to the witness, "Go ahead and state the names." 

The Chairman. I am going to admonish you again, when the wit- 
ness wants advice from you, he will indicate it. 

ISIr. Fortas. The witness is supposed to turn to me ? 

The Chairman. Please conform to that rule. 

Mr. Fortas. I will, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, I was just trying to make it plain 
to the Senator who asked me the question, that I am not trying to be 
evasive. I have lived in and met members of the State Department 
in many countries. When I changed my residence, very often the 
acquaintanceship would be dropped, and it might be renewed again 
later on. Consequently, I am not like a man who has been sitting in 
the same city all of his life and finds it easy to remember whom he 
knew in what year, and what he talked about, and so on. 

The Chairman. If you cannot remember, you can answer the Sena- 
tor by saying you cannot remember ; but there is a distinct question, 
very clearly pronounced to you, as to who you discussed it with, and 
name them all, he said, that you can remember. That, is no matter 
where you discussed it. 

Mr. Lvttimore. Well, I have discussed questions of the Far East — • 
let us try and begin at the top with — I can't remember his name now. 
Just a moment. With Mi-. John V. A. McMurray, when he was Minis- 
ter in Peking in the late 1920's and early 1930's. And I have discussed 
questions of the Far East with Mr. Nelson T. Johnson, who was sub- 
sequently Minister an.d later Ambassador. And I have discussed them 
with Ambassador Clarence E. Dawes, in Chungking. And I have dis- 
cussed them with Mr. Grew when he was Ambassador in Tokyo. And 
I believe I also met and probably talked about far eastern questions 
with Mr. Dummon, who was in the Tokyo Embassy at the same time. 

And tlien in Peking, below the top rank there would be — do you want 
me to include military attaches and people like that? 

Senator Smith. My question was as to persons in the State Depart- 
ment, connected with the State Department. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, all of these so far are State Department. 

Let me see. There would also be Mr. John Carter Vincent. There 
would be the men — I don't 7'emember their names now — who were our 
consuls in Mukden and Harbin in 1929 and 1930; members of our con- 
sulate in Tsinsing, especially in the 1920's, and I can't recall their 
names offliand at the moment. 

And among people who were junior personnel in the early 1930's 
in Peking, there would be Mr. Edmund Clubb, Mr. Donald Service. 
There was a man named — what was it, Rice or Millet, or some kind of 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2913 

grain — it was Mr. Ringwald ; Mr. John Davies — there was Mr. James 
Penfield ; and there is a man named Landon, I think, who was consul 
or consul general in Chungming in 1944, and afterward I believe he 
went to Korea. And there was Mr. George Atcheson, and probably a 
lot more, but they don't come to mind. 

Senator Smith. You do not recall any of the persons working here 
in Washington in the State Department that you talked to about this? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, some of these people I met in China only, and 
some in Washington, and some both in China and in Washington. 

Senator Smith. Well, now, did you discuss with all of those, and 
others, the articles that were appearing in Pacific Affairs while you 
were the editor? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no idea, sir. 

Senator Smith. You have no recollection whatever? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should think it is very likely that when I was out 
in Peking, for instance, a very small foreign community, and the new 
issue of Pacific Affairs had just arrived from the printer and been 
distributed, that somebody would say, "There is a good number this 
time. I like that article by So-and-So," or something of that sort. 
But I have no precise recollection. 

Senator Smith. Do you have any recollection whether you received 
any word either oral or written, by anyone in the State Departmep.t 
after the publication of particular articles? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is quite possible, but I don't recall any. 

Senator Smith. All right, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you not have thought that the magazine 
Pacific Affairs was a failure, if it had not had some influence on the 
State Department officials? 

Mr. Latit]more. I think I should point out at this moment, Senator, 
that Pacific Affairs was not an American magazine. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, whatever it was. 

Mr. Lattimore. It was an international publication of the Institute 
of Pacific Relations, and I tried to get as much circulation for it as I 
•could in a number of countries. 

Mr. Sourwine. In what languages was that magazine published? 

Mr. Lattimore. In English. 

Mr. Sourwine. In English only? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Where was it printed? 

Mr. Lattimore. It was printed in 

Mr. Sourwine. In what country ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In the United States. 

Mr. Sourwine. Entirely in the United States ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Printed in the United States and mailed out from 
either New York or from wherever the printer was. 

Mr. Sourwine. What proportion of its circulation was within the 
United States? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember. You could get those figures. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it as high as 80 percent? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would doubt it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it as high as 75 percent ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I don't remember those ratios. 

Senator Ferguson. He has not answered my question, whether or 
not he would have considered it a failure if it had not had some effect 
upon the officials of the State Department. 



2914 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I would have considered it a failure if it had not 
interested or if it had not been of interest to intelligent people working 
on far eastern problems. 

Senator Ferguson. Were you trying to influence — you indicate that 
it was a foreign paper as well as United States, and were you trying 
to influence the foreign policy of any other nation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, then, were you trying to influence the 
opinion of the public of America along far eastern affairs ? 

Mr. Lattimore, I was not trying to influence anybody's opinion, 
Senator. I was trying to supply information to those interested. 

Senator Ferguson. But not trying to influence them ? 

Mr. Latitmore. No ; it was not a propaganda organ, in any sense. 

Senator Ferguson. No articles were printed, to your knowledge, 
to influence the opinion of people ? 

Mr. Lattimore. We published articles of opinion as well as articles 
of information. You are getting into an area there of the difference 
between an author's intent and an editor's intent. 

Senator Ferguson. Weil, did you write any articles ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you, as a writer, try to influence the opinion 
oj^ the American public ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I didn't try to influence the opinion of the Ameri- 
can public more than the opinion of anybody else who might read 
the paper. 

Senato]' Ferguson. Well, did you try to influence anj'^one's opinion, 
and let us make it broad now ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Certainly, I had views of my own, and I mar- 
shalled my facts in connection with my own views. And incidentally, 
my views proceeded from the facts and not from the facts from the 
views. 

Senator Ferg^^^u^n. Did you only publish those facts that you had 
personal knowledge of ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I published facts — in what sense do you mean "per- 
sonal knowledge," Senator? 

Senator Ferguson. Knowing them from personal knowledge, per- 
sonal experience. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, you mean not including something that I 
might have got from a written source ? 

Senator Ferguson. That is right. 

Mr. Lattimore. Oh, no. Certainly, I have often gone on written 
sources. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever allow anyone to write in the maga- 
zine under an alias ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Certainly. 

Senator Ferguson. Why was that done ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a very common practice. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, did you permit any Communists 
to write under an alias? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I know of. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever try to find out whether any per- 
son who wrote under an alias was or was not a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think that question ever arose. 

Senator Ferguson. Not even in your mind ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2915 

Mr. Latttmore. Not even in my mind. 

Senator Ferguson. You were not much concerned, then, with the 

Siuestion of communism while you were with the Institute of Pacific 
xehitions, is that a fair statement? 
Mr. Lattimore. In the 1930's? 

Senator Ferguson. Well, any time while you were with the insti- 
tute. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that you should draw a line there, Sen- 
ator 

Senator Ferguson. You draw the line. 

Mr. Lattimore. Between when I was an editor and when 



Senator Ferguson. When you were an editor, yovi were not con- 
cerned with the question of communism ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In the 1930's, when I was editing that magazine, 
Senator, subjects like the Chinese Communists, and so on, were topics 
of general interest, and I tried to get information on those, but I never 
published an article that I believed to be by a Chinese Communist 
or promoting the Chinese Communists' cause. 

However, in the 1930's, if it had been possible to get an article by a 
Chinese Communist giving the Chinese Communist point of view, 
that would have been such a news scoop that I might well have pub- 
lished it, with an identification of just what it was. 

Senator Ferguson. You would, then, have identified it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you at that time, in the 1930's, that you are 
talking about, believe that the Communists of China were agrarian 
reformers, or under the international communism from Moscow ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I never believed that the Chinese Communists 
were merely agrarian reformers. I have always believed that they 
were right straight down-the-line Communists. I would like to qual- 
ify that, however, by pointing out that for many years the program 
of the Chinese Communists was based on winning a following amongst 
an agrarian population, I would like to point out, in connection with 
the ideological identity between the Chinese Communists and the 
Kremlin Communists, that for many years the Chinese Communists 
were working in an isolated part of China where the belief among 
many experts is that it was impossible for them to have constant 
liaison with Moscow. 

Senator Ferguson. You did understand this Communist prob- 
lem, and you knew the difference between the Moscow Communists 
and those that might be just agrarian reformers? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think that I thought any Communists were 
just agrarian reformers. 

Senator Ferguson. You knew the purpose of the Communists ? 

Mr, Lattimore, Well, the Chinese Communists, as far as I have 
known, have always claimed that they were straight Kremlin Com- 
munists, 

Senator Ferguson. They have never contended that they were just 
agrarian reformers, have they? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Watkins. Might I ask this question : Did you ever chal- 
lenge the Communists, or write an editorial attacking communism and 
exposing it to the people of the United States and to the world, 
through this magazine ? 



2916 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I was not an expert on communism, even 
Chinese communism, although I lived in China, and I published a 
number of articles very hostile to the Soviet Union and communism, 
by others, in Pacific Affairs. 

Senator Watkins. You do not remember about when those articles 
were published? 

(Brief recess.) 

Senator O'Conor. The witness may proceed. 

Mr. Lattimoke. Let's see; I can remember William Henry 
Chamberlin. 

Senator Watkins. I said, your opinions were your own opinions, 
your own editorials that you wrote? 

Mr. Lattimore. As I said, I was not writing on the subject of 
communism. 

Senator Watkins. That is what I want to find out, if you ever 
wrote an editorial on communism and exposed it and pointed out any 
of the dangers of communism to the free world. 

Mr. Lattimore. I was editing a magazine with all kinds of people 
contributing, and I published anti-Communist opinions. However, 
I was not an expert on the subject myself, and I did not write on 
the subject myself. 

Senator Watkins. You did write many editorials and wrote j^our 
own opinions, as you stated a moment ago ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not many editorials. I wrote articles. I think 
most of the articles that I wrote in Pacific Affairs were on my own 
specialt}', which was Inner Mongolia. 

Senator Watkins. You say you did publish some articles that were 
anti- Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. You could name those ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I can name some: William Henry Cham- 
berlin ; Harold Isaacs, a man who was the former Dutch Ambassador, 
Dutch Minister in China, Oudendyk, 0-u-d-e-n-d-y-k. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You list a number of such writers further on in 
your statement, do you not, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I do ; yes. 

Senator Watkins. Did you ever write on the subject of communism 
in your editorials? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think I ever wrote on the subject of 
communism as such in my editorials. 

Senator Watkins. Did you recognize at that time that there was 
a danger in communism ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I recognized that communism was one of the 
important subjects in the Far East. 

Senator Watkins. You did not answer my question. I asked you 
if you recognized that there was a danger in communism to the 
free Avorld. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not in the sense that we recognize it now ; no. 

Senator Watkins. In other words, you did not recognize it at 
that time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. I thought in the 1930's that communism was 
an extremely important subject in the Far East, but I did not have 
the same understanding of Communist conspiracy in long-range 
methods that I have today. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2917 

Senator Watkins. Yet you have traveled extensively in Kussia and 
in Asiatic countries where communism was rampant at that time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir ; I had not traveled extensively in Russia. 
I had traveled in China, but had never been in Communist territory 
or Communist-infiltrated territory in Cliina throughout my stay in 
China until almost the very end. 

Senator Watkins. You do not mean to say to this committee that 
you did not study comnumism or the writings that were put out in 
connection with it or the articles and books written by Communists? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. I made no special study of communism. 

Senator Watkins. I have a further question here with reference 
to whether or not the State Department relied upon this information 
or was influenced by it. We had a witness before us, Mr. Lattimore, 
I think it was Dr. Fleugel, who said that they went to the Institute of 
Pacific Relations publications to get information because there were 
very few other sources from which they could get information on 
the Far East. 

Do you care to comment on that, since you are a student of the Far 
East? 

jNIr. Lattimore. There were very few in that period. There were 
very few publications devoted exclusively to the Far East. There 
were, of course, articles on far-eastern subjects that came out in maga- 
zines like Foreign Affairs and in publications devoted to international 
relations in general, such as the publications of the Foreign Policy 
Association, but I believe that in those years, to the best of my recol- 
lection, the publications of the Institute of Pacific Relations were the 
only ones that not only specialized on the Far East but were confined 
to the Far East. 

Senator Watkins. And you would know as a matter of fact from 
your general knowledge of what was being published, written and 
published on the Far East, that the Institute of Pacific Relations 
articles were probably about the — well, they comprised the major 
part of literature at that time on that subject ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I wouldn't know whether they comprised the major 
part of the literature, I think they comprise the important part. 

Senator Watkins. You are an expert on far-eastern affairs; you 
would naturally keep in touch with these publications, all articles 
written? It would be part of your job to read them and analyze 
them? 

Mr. Lattimore. Even in those days, Senator, the volume coming 
out was too much for one man. You see, the Institute of Pacific 
Relations dealt with everything from Asiatic Siberia down to Indo- 
nesia, and even in those days no one man could possibly be an expert 
on all the countries comprised within that enormous geographical 
range. 

Senator Watkins. Well, I understand you probably could not be 
acquainted with all of them, but it would seem to me that having taken 
on the position of editor of this magazine that dealt in foreign affairs 
and studied those problems, that presented facts in connection with 
them, that you or your staff would survey all of the current articles 
and the literature on the subject for review and for presentation to 
keep your readers informed of what was going on in the Far East. 

Mr. Lattimore. Let me tell you there. Senator, the method of 
editing was rather different from that. I was only one j^erson and 



2918 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

usually had no help except a secretary. So the method of editing 
and editorial evaluation, whether an article was worth publication 
or not, was by circulating tj^pescript copies of articles to all countries. 

You see, this magazine came out only once in 3 months, so the rate 
of publication was rather leisurely. If, for instance, we had an article 
by an Englishman affecting Dutch Indonesia, we would send that 
article to somebody in Holland as well as to people in America inter- 
ested in the subject and similarly with all of the questions. They were, 
practically all the material in Pacific Affairs, had extensive prepubli- 
cation circulation and was seen by a number of people. 

If any questions were raised, they were always referred back to 
the author. 

Senator O'Oonor. Mr. Lattimore, you may continue your statement. 
I think you were just at the latter part of the second paragraph on the 
first page. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am still in the first part of the second paragraph, 
so if I may resume so that readers will not lose track of the sense  

Senator O'Conor. You have been over the first part three or four 
times, the "assiduously conveyed." 

Mr. Lattimore. But the sentence hasn't been finished yet. 

Senator O'Conor. You would prefer to go back and continue that? 

I wonder whether we could withhold our questioning until the whole 
paragraph is read? 

Mr. Lattimore. That would accord with my interest in the sub- 
ject, Senator. 

The impression has been assiduously conveyed in your proceedings 
that I am a Communist or a Communist sympathizer or dupe; that I 
master-minded the Institute of Pacific Kelations; that the Institute 
of Pacific Relations and I master-minded the far eastern experts of the 
State Department ; and that the State Department "sold" China to the 
Russians. Every one of these is false — utterly and completely false. 

Senator Ferguson. He has finished that sentence, and before he gets 
to the next one, could I ask a question ? 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Ferguson. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you claim that you know and say that the 
State Department sold China to the Russians — that is, you have per- 
sonal knowledge that that is utterly and completely false, or are you 
talking abofit your own 

Mr. Lattimore. I am talking about a dependent clause of this sen- 
tence beginning, "The impression has been assiduously conveyed that," 
and so forth. 

Senator Ferguson. That the State Department sold China to the 
Russians ? 

Mr. Lattimore. But not conveyed by me. But not conveyed by me, 
and not believed by me. 

Mr. Sourwine. Might I ask a clarifying question? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you have any doubt about the Russian domina- 
tion of China today? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, that is a very controversial ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then you do have doubt ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Some people believe. I would like to state my 
opinion in a moment, but I would like to state it in a balanced way. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2919 

Mr. SoTJRWiNE. I was attempting to clarify, not to bring forth a 
lengthy statement. If it does not clarify, I would withdraw it. 

Mr. Lattimore. Some people maintain that China is controlled in 
each and every detail by the Russians. Others believe that China is 
controlled by the Chinese Communists, but that the Chinese Com- 
munists are allies rather than subordinates of the Russians. I would 
incline to the second opinion. 

Mr. SoTJRWiNE. I am afraid the question did not help clarify. Sen- 
ator Ferguson. 

Senator Ferguson. I could ask a number of questions right there, 
but I think I will pass them. 

Senator O'Conor. Just proceed, Mr. Lattimore. 

Senator Ferguson. Because I think it is contradictory to what he 
said, that they were Communists dominated by Russia, and I will go 
back and take the other statement. 

Mr. Lattimore. That point, Senator, I think I should 

Senator Ferguson. Clarify? 

Mr. Lattimore. Clarify myself. 

Senator Ferguson. I wish you would. 

Mr. Lattimore. I spoke of my belief that the Chinese Communists 
consider themselves completely — ideologically completely — in con- 
formity with Russian ideas of communism. That is a question of 
ideological conformity, and not a question of operational control. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know of any Communists that are actu- 
ally Communists, as you claim they are, that are not under the control 
of the Communist Party of Russia, the Kremlin? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I believe that in the case of the Chinese 
Communists, owing to questions of time and distance and lack of per- 
sonnel, and so forth, it would be extremely difficult for the Russians 
to have operational control of every detail of the C'linese Communist 
action in China even if they wanted it and even if the Chinese Com- 
munists were willing to concede it. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you do not believe that Russia is domi- 
nating the war in Korea as far as the Chinese are concerned ? 

Mr. Lattiimore. If I knew the answer to that question, Senator, I 
would be in Wall Street making a lot of money. 

Senator Ferguson. In what way would you be making money out 
of that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it would be extremely valuable information 
to know exactly who is controlling how much. 

Senator Ferguson. Who do you think would pay you for that 
opinion ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I could probably go to the market. 

Ssnator Ferguson. Would j'ou not say that that was the prevalent 
opinion in the United States— that they are dominating the action of 
the Communists of China in Korea? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether it is the prevalent opinion 
or not. I know that many well-informed people in England and 
India believe that the initiative there is held by the Chinese rather 
than by the Russians. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that your opinion? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't know enough about it to decide either 
one way or the other. That is why I say if I did know I think it would 
be useful knowledge. 



2920 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. Then yon would think that Russia would 
classify as a neutral as far as Korea is concerned ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The question itself is somewhat of a non sequitur ; 
isn't it, Senator ? 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you. Would you classify it as a 
neutral ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Certainly not. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you do have some opinion on it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have an opinion, but not a precise opinion that 
1 would go to bat for. I recognize the limits of my own knowledge. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I ask two questions ? 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr, SouRwiNE. Did the State Department, the American Stat© 
Department, make the policy which the American Government fol- 
lowed with respect to China over the last 7 or 8 years? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know enough about it to tell you, Mr. Sour- 
wine, how far it was made by the State Department, how far by the 
White House, how far by the advice of the armed services, how far 
perhaps by the Treasury, how far by the Congress. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think that hindsight indicates that there 
were any mistakes in the policy which was followed by this country 
with regard to China ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would make a distinction there, Mr. Sourwine. 
Ill fact, I try to make it later in my statement, between mistakes and 
lack of success. 

Mr. Sourwine. Very good. Could we go ahead with the statement^ 
Mr. Chairman? 

Senator O'Conor. Except for this one question. Mr. Lattimore, 
you have indicated that you were not entirely informed as to the rela- 
tive importance of the different agencies or departments or individ- 
uals. May I ask if you, during that time, had any connection with 
the State Department or the White House? 

Mr. Lattimore. In a policy making? 

Senator O'Conor. In any capacity. 

Mr. Lattimore. No connection other than that of an ordinary citi- 
zen, probably as a matter of fact less connection than any far-eastern 
representative in this country. 

Senator O'Conor. Were you prior to that time or at that time 
having any connection with the State Department or the White 
House ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have never been stationed in the employ of either 
the State Department or the White House with the distinction, which 
is a technical distinction, but perhaps I had better mention it, that 
when I was on a mission in Japan, which was a White House mission, 
the pay checks for some reason — some bureaucratic reason that is 
beyond my ken — were sent out by the State Department rather than 
by the White House. 

Senator O'Conor. Did you occupy any space in either the State 
Department or the ^^Hiite House or any adjunct of them? 

]N[r. Lattijmore. Not by right. This question has come up before. 

Senator O'Conor. At all? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I dealt with it later in my statement, but 
I don't mind going into it now if you like. At one time when I was 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2921 

working for Chiang Kai-shek and when my functions were largely 
liaison functions between Chang Kai-shek and President Roosevelt, 
I was back in tliis country, and Mr. Lauchlin Currie, who was the 
executive assistant to President Roosevelt, who was in charge of most 
of Mr. Roosevelt's interest in the China problem, offered me the cour- 
tesy, not the right, of the use of a room adjoining his own office. 

That room was — there has been a great deal of confusion about it 
because that room was in the Old State, War, and Navy Building. 
The question was raised whether I had an office in the State Depart- 
ment. I confess I wasn't bright enough to tumble to it right away 
because that building housed, besides the State Department, a large 
part of the Executive Offices of the President and also the Bureau of 
the Budget. It was a multioffice building. But I did have the use 
of an office that was physicallj^ located in that building but was not 
regarded by anybody concerned as a part of the State Department. 

Senator O'Conor. "Will you then proceed to your statement, Mr. 
Lattimore, please ? 

Senator Ferguson. I might just ask one question here. Is it a fair 
assumption, then, that while you were editor of the Pacific Affairs 
the State Department was avoiding your judgment or your opinion 
as an expert in the Far East ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That during the period I was editing Pacific Affairs 
the State Department was avoiding? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; is that a fair assumption ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Avoiding what ? 

Senator Ferguson. Your 

Mr. Lattimore. My opinion or avoiding Pacific Affairs? 

Senator Ferguson. Your opinion. 

Mr. Lattimore. One has to draw a delicate line between disregard 
and avoidance. 

Senator Ferguson. Avoidance. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you think the State Department was disregard- 
ing your opinion ? 

Senator O'Conor. Let him answer. 

Senator Ferguson. Were they avoiding getting in touch with you as 
an expert? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think so. Of course, the manner and atti- 
tude of the State Department in those days was rather top-lofty and 
full of hauteur, so I suppose the mere civilian crawling on the ground 
might feel that he was being avoided, but I don't know whether it 
would be a just accusation. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you feel that you were being avoided ? 

Mr. Latttmore. I didn't feel that I was being regarded. 

Senator O'Conor. All right. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, are you familiar with exhibit 229 
introduced in the public record of this hearing on August 23, 1951, 
being a letter from Mr. Sumner Welles to Mr. Edward C. Carter, 
in which JNIr. Welles stated that — 

While for obvious reasons the Department of State has necessarily adopted 
the practice of refraining from enforcing or sponsoring any particular private 
organization, I am glad to say that in the opinion of officers of the Department 
who are especially familiar with the activities of the Institute of Pacific Rela- 
tions the publications of the institute have been of interest and value, and the 
institute has been making a substantial contribution to the development of an 
informed public opinion. 



2922 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Did you have that in mind at all in the answers you have just given? 

Mr. Lattimore, I didn't have that in mind. Now that you read it 
out it seems to me a sort of standard formula that any Government 
office sents out to any private organization that sends its publica- 
tions and hopes for a pat on the head. They didn't want to give in 
their public relations any idea of scorning anybody. 

Mr. SoIIRw^NE. I apologize for that diversion, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator O'Coxcj. All right. Now the next paragraph, Mr. Latti- 
more. 

]\Ir. Lattimore. Concerning my reputation and character, you have 
now for many months been publishing to the world an incredible mass 
of unsubstantiated accusations, allegations, and insinuations. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Who does the witness mean by "you" ? 

Senator O'Conor. May I ask, Mr. Sourwine, it will expedite if we 
read the entire paragraph. 

Mr. Lattimore. All right. 

Senator O'Conor. Will you continue on ? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. For months a long line of witnesses has set me in 
the midst of a murky atmosphere of pretended plots and conspiracies 
so that it is now practically impossible for my fellow citizens to follow 
in detail the specific refutation of each lie and smear. 

Mr. SouR'sviNE, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, who do you mean by "you" as used 
in the first line of that paragraph? Yon mean this committee? 

Mr. Lattimore. By ""you" I mean the committee was responsible 
for conducting and publishing these proceedings. Later on in my 
statement I raise the point that I do not know whether some of the 
initial responsibility is that of the committee or that of its staff. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that apparently 
there is no doubt about whom he means. He starts out in the first 
sentence, "Senators." He is talking to us. 

Mr. Sourwine. What I wanted to ask the witness, Mr. Chairman, is 
whether to his knowledge the committee has published anything except 
the hearings which have been held. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have these hearings consisted of anything except 
the testimony of witnesses under oath ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I know of. 

Mr. SourSvine. Go ahead, sir. 

Senator O'Conor. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have something to say later about the manner in 
which that testimony has been elicited and presented. 

I should, in fact, be less than frank if I did not confess that I see no 
hope that your committee will fairly appraise the facts ; and I believe 
I owe it to you to state the reasons. 

Mr, Sourwine. Do you mean by that, sir, to charge that the com- 
mittee is hopelessly biased ? 

Mr. Lallimore. I give, I say here, that I owe it to you to state the 
reasons. 

Mr. Sourwine. The question is, What do you mean ? Do you mean 
to charge that the committee is hopelessly biased ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2923 

Mr. Lati'imore. I mean that I am going to state the reasons for 
which I believe that ; that I have no hope that this committee will 
fairly appraise the facts. 

Mr. SouRwiisrE. By saying that you have no hope that this commit- 
tee will fairly appraise the facts, do you mean to charge that the com- 
mittee is hopelessly biased against you ? 

Mr. Lattimgre. As I try to make clear later in the statement, I 
don't know , I am in no position to know how much of this responsi- 
bility is divided between the committee and its staff. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore. what you do in that sentence is to 
charge this committee with bad faith. Is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am stating here my own lack of hope that this 
committee would fairly appraise. 

Senator O'Coxor. Mr. Lattimore, Senator Smith asked you a simple 
question, whether you do or do not make such charge. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether it's lack of faith or prejudice, 
Senator. 

Senator Smith. You say "* * * I see no hope that your com- 
mittee will fairly appraise the facts." 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Smith. Now, if we would fairly appraise the facts, you 
M'ould say we would be acting in good faith, if we did fairly appraise 
the facts ? You say we would act in good faith ; would you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Certainly. 

Senator Smith. Now then, you say, therefore, if according to your 
reasoning as stated here that we were not fairly appraising the facts 
that is tantamount to saying that we are acting in bad faith ; is that 
what you mean ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I base — I give my reasons, later on. 

Senator Smith. I am not asking for reasons; I am asking about 
that sentence. 

Senator O'Conor. Is it not possible to give a categorical answer ? 

Senator Smith. Not the reason, the meaning of those words. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, there is a difference between bad faith 
and prejudgment. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. Are you attempting to make a technical distinc- 
tion between bias and prejudice? 

Senator O'Conor. Just a minute ; he ought to be permitted to com- 
plete his answer. 

Mr. Lattimore. I base this statement here largely on the fact that 
the chairman of this committee at a time that the hearings are still in 
progress and before all the evidence is in has stated in print in a pub- 
lished interview as his "curbstone opinion" that the IPR originally 
was an organization with laudable motives. It was taken over by 
Communist design and made a vehicle for attempted control and con- 
ditioning of American thinking and American policy with regard to 
the Far East. 

It was also used for espionage purposes to collect and channel infor- 
mation of interest or value to the Russian Communists. That was, 
in my opinion 

Senator O'Conor. Will you just identify that? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is the United States News and World — it's 
quoted later in my statement. United States News and World Re- 
port of this city, and the date is November 16, 1951. 



2924 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire at this point? 
Would it interrupt Senator Smith? 

I would simply like to inquire, Mr. Lattimore, do you know that at 
the time the chairman made that statement this committee had taken 
five volumes of testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no idea, Mr. Sourwine, of how much the 
committee had scooped up or what it scooped it up in, but I am aware 
that the hearings are not complete, that this is a prejudgment in a 
hearing that is still under process where most of the accused have not 
yet been heard. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you mean, Mr. Lattimore, to imply your feel- 
ing that the chairman of the committee had no right to form for him- 
self a personal opinion as to what the testimony up to that point 
indicated ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I am merely pointing out that when 
the chairman of this committee makes a public statement of this kind 
in a publication that goes to many thousands of people and may, there- 
fore, influence public opinion while the hearing is still in process, it 
deprives me of hope that the committee will fairly appraise the facts. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, were you taking this statement 
of what you read of the chairman as a personal one to you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am taking it as a statement on this whole inquiry 
of which I am a part. 

Senator Ferguson. Could it be possible that evidence in this com- 
mittee does show exactly what the chairman said? Leave yourself 
out of it. I am talking about the other evidence not concerning you. 

Mr. Lattimore. You mean accusatory evidence, some of it rather 
obviously biased and prejudiced with no clarification from the many 
defendants yet in the picture? No, I don't think it's possible to 
make a fair appraisal under those circumstances. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you say that if seven or eight witnesses 
who wrote for IPH had appeared in this room and when asked the 
question at the time that they wrote as to whether or not they were or 
were not Communists and they refused to answer on the ground that 
it might tend to incriminate them after there was evidence in the 
record that they were Communists ; that this IPR then had been pene- 
trated by Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am saying here 

Senator Ferguson. Answer my question. 

Mr. Lattimore. That I see no hope 

Senator Ferguson. I am not asking you what you see. 

Mr. Lattimore. That the committee will fairly appraise the facts 
as they regard me. 

Senator Ferguson. Answer my question. With seven or eight wit- 
nesses testifying as I have said, would you say it would be a fair state- 
ment by the chairman that it had been penetrated by Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I come to the question of these witnesses 
later in my statement. 

Senator Ferguson. Can you answer my questions ? 

Mr. Latitmore. At the moment I would say that it is a biased and 
prejudiced action to make a public statement of this kind from such 
a position of responsibility as the chairman of this committee at any 
time before all the evidence is in, including the rebuttal evidence. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2925 

' Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, you have made the statement 
that there was not any Communist influence in this. Do you not 
think it would have been well for you to hold your opinion until all 
the evidence was in? 

Mr. Lattimore. Excuse me, Senator, the discussion up to tliis 
point has not been about whether there was any Communist influence 
in such a vague thing as "in all this" or "in this," I forget your exact 
terms. The discussion has been about Pacific Affairs, which I edited, 
and about my responsibility for that. 

Senator Fergusox. You are not named in the United States Reports, 
are you? Your name was not used in relation to this sentence that 
you read ? 

Mr. Latt'imore. As one of those who for the first time in something 
like 8 months is being given an opportunity to say something in public 
for himself, I think I am entitled to make that statement, Senator. 

Senator Fergusox. But you were named in this statement? 

jSIr. Latitmore. No. I was not named. 

Senator Ferguson. In relation to the sentence 

Mr. Lattimore. I was not named, but the statement which I am 
quoting is one of a kind to implicate anybody concerned with the 
Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Senator Fergusox. Why did you adopt that sentence as meaning 
you TA-hen there was other testimony in the record showing that Com- 
munists had penetrated the IPR? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am simply referring to a statement made 
while an investigation is still in process which I consider a prejudicial 
statement. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, but you are criticizing the Chair for mak- 
ing a statement when there was evidence in this record showing that 
Communists had penetrated. I am leaving you out of the question 
entirely, that Communists had penetrated the IPR. You are criti- 
cizing the chairman's statement of that. 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not see the justification, Senator, for such a 
statement in characterization of the whole xAien the evidence applies 
to only a part. This statement does not say in part or as far as the 
hearings have gone, or without prejudice to those who may be innocent, 
or anything of that kind. There is no reservation in it. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that that statement indicates that 
everyone co)inected with tlie IPR was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that statement means exactly what it says. 

Senator Ferguson. Does it say that? 

]Mr. Lattimore. That Senator McCarran came to the conclusion that 
it was taken over by Communist design and made a vehicle and so 
forth and that it was also used for espionage purposes. The fact 
that some individuals may have refused to testify whether they were 
ever Communists is thus creating a belief in any reasonable mind 
that they probably were at one time Communists or may still be 
Communists is still not evidence that they took over the institute 
or that they controlled it or that they used it for conveying informa- 
tion to Soviet Russia. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Lattimore, you understand that this is a 
seven-man committee, do you not ? 
Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

88348— 52— pt. 9 3 



2926 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Watkins. And that the chairman obviously was not try- 
ing to speak for anybody but himself. As far as I am concerned I 
am trying to keep my mind open on this question, and it does not 
help any for you to come along and make charges like that. 

Mr. Lattimore. I appreciate that. 

Senator Smith. Was there any question that Field was a Com- 
munist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe he has refused to testify, hasn't he ? 

Senator Smith. I thought he admitted. 

]\Ir. Lattimore. I don't know ; is it in the record ? 

Senator Smith. He had a Communist demonstration before the 
White House, did he not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know what the record has in that respect, 
Senator. 

Senator Smith. Have you read all this record now, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I read most of it once. Some of the more 
recent testimony that hasn't been printed I haven't read yet. 

Senator Smith. Could you reach any conclusion if you did not have 
any interest in this matter, the same as Senator McCarran, as far as 
it has gone? 

Mr. Lattimore. ]My primary conclusion on reading the record, as 
I state precisely later on, is that the record shows that no witness 
has been subjected to examination, much less cross-examination, to 
test his veracity or the validity of his evidence. 

Senator Smith. Do you uaderstand that this is a trial or it is in 
the nature of a grand jury procedure? You know the difference? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry I don't. 

Senator Smith. You know that a grand jury proceeding is one in 
which you are trying to get facts on which to base a charge. This is 
a grand jury. In a trial you say, "This man is accused of being" 
guilty. Is he innocent or guilty?" You see a distinction, I know, 
between those. You understand that this was an inquiry in the 
nature of a grand jury proceeding to see what are the facts on which, 
charges might be based. I guess your counsel will agree with that 
distinction. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, wouldn't even an all-powerful and care- 
ful grand jury be somewliat interested in the quality of its witnesses? 

Senator Smith. Absolutely, but you cannot do everything in one 
hearing or 1 day or for that matter 1 year. 

Mr. Fortas. Senator, could Ave have a recess? 

I\Ir. SouRwixE. C^ould I have just one question to tie up that para- 
grapli and then go to the recess? 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. I thi]ik tlio question has been asked before, but not 
directly answered. When you said that you saw no hope that this 
committee Avould fairly appraise the facts, did you mean to charge 
that the committee is biased? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that question has been asked in at least 
two or three forms already. INIr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. I think it has. Will you answer ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My feeliug T expressed as clearly as possible in the 
words I have here, simply that I see no hope that this committee will 
fairly appraise the facts. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2927 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you make a technical distinction between in- 
ability to appraise the facts fairly and being biased ? 

Mr. Lattisioke. Those aren't the only two alternatives, Mr. Sour- 
wine. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Do 3'on make a technical distinction between those 
two alternatives? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would not make a technical distinction between 
those two alternatives only when they are not the only alternatives 
that apply to this instance. 

Mr. SouRWiXE. Do j^ou make a technical distinction between those 
and other alternatives? 

Mr. LATTi:\roRE. 1 will say that my statement is primarily based on 
the impression that I have from a reading of the proceedings as they 
have thus far been published of a general attitude of minds being made 
up in advance. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you not think that being biased and being un- 
able fairly to appraise the facts are substantially the same thing ( Do 
you want to make a distinction between them? 

Mr. Lattijiiore. Mr. Sourwine, I am no scholar of philosophy. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you want to make a distinction between them? 
Do you want to make a distinction here between being biased and 
being unable fairl}" to ap]:)raise the facts? 

JMr. Lattimore. Being biased or being unable to 

Mr. Sourwine. Fairly appraise the facts. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I will rejoin the split infinitive, unable to ap- 
praise the facts fairly. 

Mr. SouKw^iNE. Mr. Chairman, I Avitiich'aw that question. I am 
anxious to get over to tlie next page where ]\Ir. Lattimore makes it 
clear that he is opposed to making a technical distinction. 

Senator Ferguson. Just a moment; I might ask a question. 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Ferguson. 

Senator Ferguson. There is not any doubt, Mr. Lattimore, that you 
have made up your mind about the committee as to what you read from 
the United States Reports? 

Mr. Lattimore. I made up my mind primarily on one thing, Sena- 
tor, and that is that I am an innocent man. 

Senator Ferguson, Well, would you say that your opinion is biased 
about this committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, if you want to go on with this game of se- 
mantics, I would say that from my point of view if you draw a diagram 
I stand at the center of this picture and it's very hard to be biased in 
the center. You can be biased at any point departing from the center, 
but it's extremely difficult to be biased at the center, to stand at the 
center as I am and you are what you are. 

Senator O'Conor. We will take a recess now until 20 minutes 
after 4. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Senator O'Conor. The hearing will please come to order. 

All right, Mr. Lattimore, will you proceed? 

Mr. Lattimore. To give a false appearance of reality to this night- 
mare of outrageous lies, shaky hearsay, and undisguised personal spite, 
the subcommittee has put into the record letters, memoranda, book 
reviews, and other items from the files of the Institute of Pacific 
Relations. 



2928 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, that is a long paragraph. Might I 
ask a question at the end of that sentence ? 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Dr. Lattimore, who do you charge with "undis- 
guised personal spite"? 

Mr. Lattimore. That comes later in my statement, Mr. Sourwine. 

Senator Smith. Let us hear it now; I know I have no personal 
spite. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am glad you don't. 

Senator Smith, ^^liy should I? 

Senator Watkins. I am in the same position I indicated, nobody 
makes up my mind. I say you are not helping by discussing the com- 
mittee to start with. 

JNlr. Lattimore. Senator, I am trying to say that the subcommittee 
started to put into the record letters, memoranda, book reviews, and 
other items. 

Mr. Sourwine. Who do you charge with "undisguised personal 
spite," sir? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I look through the- 

Mr. Sourwine. You know who you refer to. Do you have to read 
that statement to learn who you refer to? 

Mr. Lattimore. One rather obvious example of personal spite is one 
of your former employees. Miss Freda Utley. I should say 

Mr. Sourwine. Has Miss Utley testified jjefore this committee? 

Mr. Lattimore. Miss LTtley was in the employ of this committee and 
presumably helped to recruit and prepare some of the other witnesses. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. Do you know an}' witness that Miss Utley has helped to 
recruit, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Senator O'Conor. Jnst a moment; Mr. Morris has a question. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know of any one witness who Miss Utley helped 
to recruit for this committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no idea. I know that Miss Utley showed her 
personal spite when she testified. 

]Mr. IMoRRis. That is not the question. 

Mr. Lattimore. When she testified before the Tydings committee 
a couple of years ago, and then she was hired by this committee for a 
couple of months. 

Mr. Sourwine. "\"\nien you referred to "this nightmare," were you 
referring to the proceedings of the Tydings committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was referring "to this nightmare of outrageous 
lies, shaky hearsay, and undisguised personal spite," presented before 
this subcommittee. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes. Now the "undisguised personal spite" that 
you refer to as presented 

Mr. Lattimore. Which includes Karl Wittfogel, would be a good 
example. I should think Professor McGovern and Professor Cole- 
grove, both of Northwestern University. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now we are getting at it. Who else would you 
include in your charges of "undisguised personal spite" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I have read through and endeavored 
to clarify as much as one brain can hold it, an enormous mass of 
testimony already issued by this committee, and if you will give me 
time I would be very glad to come in tomorrow with some more 
specific identifications. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2929 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Smith. 

Senator Smith. Here is a fairly simple statement, "and undis- 
guised personal spite." That means personal spite that anybody 
can see; that is undisguised. Now if the author cannot tell us who 
it is that has this spite, I do not know whether we should even con- 
sider this statement any more if it is so flimsy that he cannot tell 
you who it is that has personal spite. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have given certain examples. 

Senator Smith. You have not named anybody on this committee. 

Mr. Lattimore. Presented before. 

Senator O'Conor. Are we to understand, then, Mr. Lattimore, that 
you do not intend that to be applicable to any member of this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr, Lattimore, your whole sentence jays the sub- 
committee has done something and tells why you think the committee 
has done it. 

Mr. Lattimore. The subcommittee has put into the record. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes, sir. Why do you say that the committee has 
put into the record certain things '? Do you not say that the subcom- 
mittee has done that "to give a false appearance of reality to this 
nightmare * * *," meaning the proceedings of this subcommittee? 

Mr. Lattimore. Certainly. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You say ''this nightmare of outrageous lies, shaky 
hearsay, and undisguised personal spite * * *.'' Are you not then 
charging that this subconnnittee has done certain things, namely^ 
put matters into the record in order "to give a false appearance of 
reality" to the proceedings of this committee ? Is that not what you 
are saying there? 

Mr. Lattimore. "To give a false appearance of reality to this night- 
mare of outrageous lies, shaky headsay, and undisguised personal 
spite," and so forth. I specified below that a large part of this comes 
from tlie files of the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. But you have indentified 

Mr. Lattimore. I said on the previous page — no, at the top of this 
page — that I do not believe, that I have no hope, that this committee 
■will fairly appraise the facts, and this is part of my supporting state- 
ment. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I am not challenging you on what you are saying, 
sir, at the moment : I am trying to make the record clear as to what 
precisely you are charging. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. This material has been presented in such confu- 
sion, and years and dates have been so jumbled, as to make it impossi- 
ble for ordinary citizens who are not experts on the Far East to judge 
whether a problem is being discussed as it was at the time, as it might 
have been, or as it is now. 

Mr. SouRAVHSTE. Mr. Chairman, I have two questions about that sen- 
tence. You say the material has been presented in confusion, sir. 
Did you find it confusing ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Very. 

Mr. Souravine. You say that years and dates have been jumbled. 
Is there any docmnent that you know of that has been introduced in 
the hearing record to date which has been misidentified as to date? 



2930 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I mean a confusion in the order in which dates and 
subjects have been presented. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You take issue with the order in which they have 
been presented. Will you answer as to your knowledge whether any 
document has been put in the record and improperly identified as to 
date ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I know of no such example, and I wasn't talking 
about any such thing. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Go ahead. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Ferguson. 

Senator Ferguson. You are criticizing the committee for taking a 
witness and going through that particular witness on documents and 
dates even though it may skip certain periods. You would w^ant the 
committee to bring a witness back, have all the witnesses here, and 
put it in, all the testimony of 1 year, in at that period so that you could 
judge the evidence of all the witnesses for a particular year; is that 
what you are after? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, my impression from trying to go through all 
this material and reduce it to some order for the purpose of answering 
these charges against me is that it is extremely difficult to do so because 
the allegations jump all over the place from year to year, the docu- 
ments of different years are introduced at various points. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that not because witnesses have knowledge 
of certain documents and not knowledge of other documents ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. Senator. To some extent the presen- 
tation of documents seems to have been, according to the record, at the 
instance of counsel of the committee rather than of the witnesses them- 
selves in some cases at least. 

Senator Smith. I would like to ask a question. 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Smith. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, you realize that every witness that 
has testified has testified under oath here? 

Mr. Lat'timore. Quite so. 

Senator Smith. Do you recognize that that system of having wit- 
nesses in courts or what-not under oath is the only system that you 
can have when you start to take the testimony of a person ? You would 
say, would you not, that when a court swears a witness to testify to the 
truth that is all the court can do at the moment; is that not correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Smith. The court cannot know in advance what the wit- 
ness is going to say precisely ; can it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, in the case of this committee the practice ap- 
parently has been to hear every witness, or practically every witness, in 
executive session before and then to hear them in public. By the 
time the public record is published it includes a number of refer- 
ences showing that witnesses have been questioned on the basis of 
something that they have previously said in executive testimony which 
would presumably give the maximum opportunity for presenting 
problems in chronological order and with the documents for those 
problems introduced at that point in the record. 

Senator Smith. You approve of having executive sessions to first 
give the witness a chance to testify without publication ; do you not, 
or do you ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2931 

Mr, Lattimore. I have never been a Senator, Senator, and I can't 
■solve that kind of problem. 

Senator Smith. I am asking you whether or not you prefer to have 
and think it would be fair to have an executive session first to try 
to get at the facts before they were brought out in public? 

Mr. Lattimore. I never had the responsibility of handling that kind 
of problem. 

Senator Smith. I am not asking you that. 

Mr. Lattimore. I just don't want to give an ofl'-the-cuff answer 
on a problem I have never handled. 

Senator Smith. How would you conduct an investigation of this 
sort if you were trying to get at the facts? Would you first have the 
witness sworn or would you take him unsworn ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, Senator, I certainly would not let months 
and months go by before people who have been accused of very vile 
charges 



"to"- 



Senator S]\eith. I did not ask you that question. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not given a rebuttal. 

Senator Smith. I am asking you how, step by step, you would con- 
duct an investigation. Would you first swear the witness, or would 
you prefer to have him unsworn ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Have any witnesses been unsworn ? 

Senator Smith. No; I said would you prefer to have a witness 
sworn or unsworn. 

INIr. Lattimore. I am sorry, Senator; you are asking technical 
questions. 

Senator Smith. Not at all. I am going to the question of whether 
or not this committee has gone on in good faith in swearing witnesses 
to try to get the truth. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I said nothing about swearing witnesses. 

Senator Smith. But you attacked the committee here. You said 
that it is "To give a false appearance." That is what you said we 
are trying to do, give a "false appearance of reality to this nightmare 
of outrageous lies, shaky hearsay, and undisguised personal spite." 
Up to now you have not pointed out who on this committee has per- 
sonal spite against you. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have. 

Senator O'Conor. Wliat did you say ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I have. 

Senator Watkins. On the committee ? 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Smith said "on the committee," said 
you disavowed that previously? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, no, thank you. 

Senator Smith. So you do not want to tell us how you would pro- 
ceed in conductino; an investigation when you are trying to get the 
facts? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I don't think my amateur opinion of 
how 

Senator Smith. Do you not know that what we are doing here is 
trying to get the facts? Nobody has been charged with a crime so 
far as I know here. Do you not understand that we are just merely 
trying to get the facts to start with ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am saying that I should have liked to 
see witnesses given an earlier opportunity to answer charges. I should 



2932 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

like to see some examination and cross-examination. Those are ques- 
tions on which I can answer. The question on whether you ask a 
witness to swear standing on his head or sitting down, that kind of 
thing, is just beyond my competence. 

Senator Smith. We have asked you to testify under oath; have 
we not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Smith. And you are testifying under oath? 

]Mr. Lattimore. I am. 

Senator Smith. And we are cross-examining you ; are we not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Smith. What is the question about that? You have a 
chance to say anything you want to say. 

Mr. Lattimore. I haven't accused anybody of being a Communist 
on inadequate evidence, but I am being cross-examined. 

Senator Smith. Who has ? 

Mr. Lattimore. A whole string of your witnesses. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Who are you accusing of what? 

Senator Smith. They swear under oath. 

IVIr. Lattimore. But they haven't been cross-examined. 

Senator Smith. Well, whenever they get ready to charge anybody 
with being a Communist, they will be cross-examined at the trial of the 
case. We are not tr3dng the case now. You seem to misconceive the 
purpose of an investigation, that is just to get the facts to start with. 
I would not want you accused here without giving you a full chance to 
reply, not at all. That is the reason I understood we were going to 
hear everything you have to say, and I am in favor of that, giving 
you a chance to explain everything. 

Senator Watkins. This is not a trial, Mr. Lattimore. If you were 
in court and said the things you said to this committee to a court, you 
would be promptly held in contempt of court and would be in jail. So 
this is not a trial. You are getting a lot better treatment than you 
would get in a trial if you made those statements to the judge. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I have made a statement here which I have 
been working on for months, in which I have tried to give as orderly 
as possible a presentation of what I want to say in as orderly a way 
as I know how to do it. I have made my statement and then bring- 
in what else I have to 

Senator Watkins. Do you want us to consider it fairly, impartially, 
and without bias? Answer me that. Do you want us to consider it 
that way ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Certainly. 

Senator Watkins. Wliy do 3^ou start out abusing us if you want 
us to do that ? 

Mr. Laitimore. Senator, I have to characterize the kind of evidence 
that has been piled into this record. 

Senator Watkins. You are not characterizing the evidence; you 
are characterizing the committee. 

Mr. Latit]more. Well, I am characterizing the way in which this 
kind of evidence has been piled up with no opportunity for rebuttal, 
and very important, I think. 

Senator Watkins. You are here for rebuttal now. 

Mr. Lattimore. And no testing of the credibility or veracity of the 
witnesses. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2933 

Senator Smith, How do you think we ought to test your credibility 
and your veracity? We are taking you on what you say. How do 
you sa^^ we test your credibility and veracity right now in your own 
case ? 

Mr. Lattimore, Senator, I tliink all of you are doing the best you 
can. 

Senator Smith. We are doing just what you said we were not doing 
then ; are we not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, Senator, I think that the kind of examina- 
tion to which I have been subjected for several hours now, has been 
rather markedly absent in the case of some of the witnesses who have 
been making the accusations to which I am trying to reply. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, you are accusing, are you not, 
certain witnesses coming before this committee with outrageous lies? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. That is what you are saying about other wit- 
nesses ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Now why do you then censure other witnesses 
who came in to say that you had not told the truth ? Why should you 
censure them and not want them to censure you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I think that thus far I have probably 
not read a comiDlete sentence without interruption, whereas the wit- 
nesses to whom I refer have been given a very free hand. 

Senator Ferguson. Did anyone accuse you 

Mr. Lattimore. Without the same kind of 



Senator Ferguson. Did anyone accuse you as being an outrageous 
liar? 

Mr. Lattimore. By implication, certainly. 

Senator Ferguson. You are using not implications but the exact 
words. 

Mr. Lattimore. They are accusing me of being a Communist, and 
I am denying it. Wouldn't that be an obvious lie ? 

Senator Smith. We do not know whether it is or not. 

Mr. Lattimore. All I am trying to do, Senator, is to get out a 
straight statement. 

Senator O'Conor. Just a minute, Mr. Lattimore is speaking. Go 
ahead. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am not legally trained myself. I am 
trying to read a statement that I have made in as simple English as 
I can, and I have been interrupted repeatedly. I don't want to give 
an impression of evasiveness or hair-splitting or anything of that 
kind, but I cannot help but be conscious of what I believe is one dif- 
ference between the grand fury procedure which you yourself men- 
tioned not long ago and this kind of procedure, namely, that I believe 
that a grand jury is not usuall}^ composed exclusively of trained 
lawyers. 

Senator Smith. I do not know of any grand jury 

Mr. Lattimore. When on the otlier liand I am perhaps unwar- 
rantedly aware of the fact that I am sitting here under conditions 
in which my own lawyer is not allowed to tender advice to me while 
I am asked rather complicated questions involving legal points which 
miglit be pitfalls for me, to which I have to try to reply to the best 
of my ability. 



2934 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, is that not begging the question ? 
You were advised, and if you were not advised, you are now, that on 
any of these so-called complicated questions if you are unable to com- 
prehend them you have the right to consult with your counsel. Why 
do you give the impression in the record that you are being deprived 
of the right of consultation with counsel ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, my counsel is not allowed to intervene 
at any time. 

Senator O 'Conor. You are allowed to consult him, 

Mr. Lattimore. At any time he thinks I may need advice and I in 
my ignorance may be at the most need of advice at any moment 

Senator O 'Conor. It is evident that you know when you need ad- 
vice, and you know better than anybody else when you need it. 

Senator Watkins. Most of the witness' statements up to date have 
been charges against the committee, and now he is including some of 
the witnesses, and I think the committee had the right immediately to 
find out what he meant by what he was saying, who and all that. 

Now v^'e had not had any witness before that has shown the con- 
tempt for the committee that this witness has and made the charges 
that he has. I think we have had a perfect right to question him on 
that. I think he comes in and says he cannot get a fair trial, and im- 
mediately afterward he will say he did not have a fair trial. 

I came here with an open mind to try to get your statement. When 
you keep on attacking and attacking it seems to me you cannot be fair. 

Mr, FoRTAS. I am counsel for Mr. Lattimore. Do I have the 
privilege of saying something here ? 

Senator Smith. If you can give us any facts, I say you should. 

Senator O'Conor, What did you wish to say? 

Mr. FoRTAS, I wish to address myself to this progi'am that the 
distinguished Senator Smith raised — that is, about procedure. It is, 
after all, a legal question. It is very difficult for a lawyer to sit here 
and hear statements that affect the interest of his client and to be in 
a position where he can't say anything. I am sure that all of you 
gentlemen who are distinguished lawyers appreciate that. 

Now as to Mr. Lattimore's consulting with me, he is sitting here 
under an intense barrage questions from one, two, three, four, five 
distinguished gentlemen, and his concentration is intense upon those 
questions, and obviously he can't be expected to know when to con- 
sult counsel. 

Now of course I have a very fundamental difference of opinion 
with Senator Smith as to the purpose of a Senate investigation, I 
believe that the purpose of a Senate investigation is to develop the 
facts, both sides of the facts, impartially and fairly. It is not my 
position or my prerogative to say whether that has been achieved 
here or not. I haven't read your hearings, and it is none of my busi- 
ness here. But it does seem to me that when Mr. Lattimore is con- 
fronted with a choice as to whether this is a grand jury or petty jury 
proceeding that he is obviously at a serious disadvantage. 

If Senator Smith says that it is like a grand jury proceeding, it's 
like a grand jury proceeding so far as Mr. Lattimore is concerned. 
To me there are a great manj^ differences. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest it, this witness has read a page 
and a half of this statement. The statement says that "I believe I owe 
it to you to state the reasons for what is a serious accusation of this 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC KELATIONS 2935 

committee." As I read the statement it is a serious accusation of the 
committee, and I have read the statement, and he proceeds to set forth 
the reasons why he makes that accusation. He may be right; he may 
be wrong. He may be justified ; he may be completely unjustified, but, 
Senator, may I respectfully beg of you that the witness be allowed to 
lay before the members of this committee, most of whom, I take it, 
have not read the statement, what the reasons are and then may I 
respectfully suggest that you go ahead and cross-examine him on it, 
but I suggest that no hmnan being can present a statement in that 
fashion. 

I know many of you gentlemen ; I have the greatest respect for all of 
you, and I am sure that it is merely because you do not realize, as I 
keenly do, the strain under which this man is and has been for many 
days and many weeks that causes this. I beg your pardon. Senator, 
for getting emotional about this, but I do believe that it should be said. 

Senator O'Conor. The committee has considered the matters. The 
sessions are not to be prolonged; certainly they have not been thus 
far. We did not begin until some time approaching 3 o'clock. At the 
request of the witness a recess was taken, and we are going to continue 
only to 5 o'clock. So that in full time he will not have been on the 
stand much over 2 hours, so it is not too long. He has enjoyed advice 
of counsel during the preparation of the statement, and he has shown 
himself to be capable. 

The point I was making is that he was giving an erroneous impres- 
sion that he is not enjoying advice of counsel. The point is that he has 
the right to advise with you at any time. If that has not been suffi- 
ciently indicated before, it has now. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Fortas, if this were a grand jury procedure 
you would not be entitled to be in the grand jury. 

Mr. FoRTAs. No, and he would not be confronted with a group of 
skilled lawyers. 

Senator Ferguson. Would he not have the Attorney General and 
would he not have any number of assistants to the Attorney General 
and would he not be before the grand jury? 

Mr. FoRTAS. The point I am making, and I beg of you to consider, 
is a human matter. The point that I am making to you is that the 
strain upon a witness of having questions shot at him, which is per- 
fectly appropriate procedure, I am not criticizing you, I am asking 
you to bear in mind that strain, of having questions shot at him by a 
number of very skillful lawyers, is very great indeed, and it is so great 
as to preclude his use with ordinary intelligence of the availability of 
counsel for consultation. 

Senator Ferguson. "W^iat length of sessions would you desire ? 

Mr. FoRTAs. It's not a matter of the length of session. You have 
been very kind, and when I saw the witness was under great fatigue 
and asked the chairman for a recess I got it, and I am sure that you 
will continue to extend that courtesy. But, gentlemen, these proceed- 
ings are a tremendous strain, I have seen that with people that I have 
handled, and I beg you to keep that in mind and let this man lay out 
these reasons which will retraverse many of the things which j^ou have 
already asked him. 

Senator Ferguson. You are again asking this committee to conduct 
the examination by allowing the witness to read this statement without 
cross-examination ? 



2936 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. FoRTAS. No ; I am not. 

Senator Ferguson. I, for one, do not believe that tliat is the way 
to conduct this examination. You and I differ on that problem. I 
am sure, Mr. Fortas, that if you were over here you would want to 
ask some questions. 

Mr. FoRTAS. I don't know what my attitude would be, Senator. I 
am sure that I would want to have the witness say what he had to say 
in an orderly fashion. I don't believe this witness has done it. 

Senator Smith. I think the difficulty there, Mr. Chairman, is that 
these statments which we have cross-examined him on are manifestly 
unfair statements which he has made about the committee and about 
witnesses. Now I can understand how Mr. Lattimore might sit down 
and write this or dictate it in a free-hand fashion and make statements 
that he does not have proof of, and that is a thing that he can do 
until he is challenged. 

We are challenging Mr. Lattim ore's statement that we are trying to 
give a false appearance; we are challenging the statement that the 
committee will not fairly appraise the facts, not that it is not able to 
do so but will fairly appraise the facts. That is to say that we will 
improperly and unfairly appraise the facts. 

I resent that because I do not think this committee has any preju- 
dice against Mr. Lattimore; certainly I do not have, and I do not 
believe the rest of you have. We may have had witnesses that were 
prejudiced against him, but that is not our fault as long as we swear 
them to tell the truth. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, may I take up one thing? 

Senator O'Connor. The witness. 

Mr. Lattimore. Namely, that if you believe that this committee in 
its published proceedings has created the impression that this is a 
committee before which a witness could appear with only a statement 
that he had light-heartedly, and I think you said free-handedly, dic- 
tated 

Senator Smith. I did not say "light-heartedly." 

Mr. Lattimore. I think you underrate the committee. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Watkins. 

Senator Watkins. I want to make a comment with respect to the 
suggestions of Mr. Fortas that we wait until he is through. 

Mr. FoRTAS. I beg your pardon; with the subject matter. 

Senator Watkins. If you are going to go through 50 pages, by 
that time the Senators have to go to other matters, and we have to ask 
questions as we go along because it has been my experience that we 
never ask them. We have to ask them as the witness goes along. 

He has raised the charges against the committee. He has not gotten 
down to facts. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have been trying. 

Senator Watkins. But you did not get by the charge statement 
against the committee, and we have a right to know. 

Mr. Fortas. You haven't a copy of the statement, but you will notice 
that on page 8 there is a roman II, and all that I had in mind was that 
the witness be allowed to get through with this one subject matter so 
that you can see and cross-examine him on what he says about that par- 
ticular subject matter. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2937 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Clifiinnan, I move that it is 5 o'clock and 
we recess. The press has had this ; the public have had it, and the only 
people that are going to miss anything are those people who are now in 
the room and who have not had the opportunity to read it. 

Senator O'Conok. It has already been determined to recess at 5, and 
it is almost that. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I make one remark ? 

Senator O'Conor. The witness. 

Mr. Lattimore. Please do not think that I was trying to accuse the 
Chair or the committee of denying me advice of counsel. I am per- 
fectly aware it was made expressly clear by Senator McCarran at the 
very beginning that I am entitled to advice of counsel when I ask for it^ 

All I was trying to point out is that this is a one-way procedure and. 
that my counsel is not entitled to intervene when he as a lawyer might 
see that I am trying to answer these complicated legal questions from 
trained lawyers, might, as a layman, be getting into trouble that I did 
not appreciate and therefore couldn't ask him about in advance. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, in retrospect as you look back on 
this afternoon's hearing has there been any point where you would 
have preferred Mr. P'ortas to advise you when you realize that you did 
not ask for advice ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I don't know if you realize the kind of 
strain that this hearing is, but it requires such an intense concentration 
on each question as it is asked that I at this moment could not give you 
an intelligent recapitulation of this afternoon. 

Senator Ferguson. He may be by morning. 

Senator O'Conor. But you cannot refer to a single instance where- 
you were at a disadvantage by reason of that fact? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not offhand, no, liecause my mind is now a maze. 

Senator O'Conor. At this point then we will as previously agreed 
stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene at 10 
a. m., Wednesday, February 27, 1952.) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC EELATIONS 



WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1952 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 

OF THE Internal Securitt Act and Other 
Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. G. 

Tlie subcommittee met at 10 : 55 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 
424 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Pat McCarran (chairman 
of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators McCarran, O'Conor, Smith, Ferguson, Jenner, 
^nd Watkins. 

Also present: Senators Langer and McCarthy; J. G. Sourwine, 
committee counsel ; and Robert Morris, subcommittee counsel. 

The Chairman. The subcommittee will come to order. 

The chairman on yesterday intended to but omitted to make this 
statement to the audience, that the committee prefers that there should 
be no demonstration of any kind to any statement made by any wit- 
ness, either approving or disapproving of the statement. We hope that 
the audience may see fit to conform to that rule. 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN lATTIMOEE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

ABE FORTAS 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Lattimore, you were interrogated yester- 
day, and you covered about three pages of your statement. You have a 
statement there of 50 pages. Would you desire to insert that full 
statement in the record, or do you desire to read the statement and be 
interrogated on it, paragraph by paragraph ? And if you insert it in 
the record, as you may do if you see fit, it will become a part of the 
record, but you will be cross examined on your statement and on other 
matters pertaining to your statement and your position. Which do 
you wish to do? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, may I at this moment avail myself 
of your previous permission to use my one-way communication with 
my counsel? 

The Chairman. Y'ou can have a two-way communication if you 
want to. 

(Mr. Lattimore conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Lattimore. I would like to read my statement, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Very well. You will be interrogated as you go 
along. 

Senator O'Conor, I will have to ask you to take over. I have to go to 
another assignment. Thank you very much. 

2939 



2940 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

(Senator O'Conor assnmecl the chair.) 

Senator O'Conor. You may proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not quite sure where I got to yesterday. I 
believe it was near the bottom of page 2, is that right? Does the 
record show? 

Senator O'Conor. I do not think that you got through the second 
paragraph, but the sentence beginning, "This material has been 
presented," and so forth. I think you were being interrogated on 
that. In any event, I think time might be saved, if you so desired, 
to take it up at that point and just read on. 

Mr. Lattimore. This material has been presented in su-ch con- 
fusion, and years and dates have been so jumbled, as to make it im- 
possible for ordinary citizens who are not experts on the Far East to 
judge whether a problem is being discussed as it was at the time, as it 
might have been, or as it is now. I do not know whether this is 



chargeable to the committee or its staff 

Mr. Sourwine. At that point 

Senator O'Conor. I think you should be permitted to finish the 
sentence and the paragraph. 

Mr. Lattimore. But no one can read the record without realizing 
that this is what has happened. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lattimore, do you mean by that statement that you do not 
know whether this is chargeable to the committee or its staff, to say 
that in your opinion there has been a deliberate jumbling by either the 
committee or its staff, or both? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I believe the record as it has been 
accumulated shows just what I have said, a jumbling that makes it 
impossible for ordinary citizens to judge whether a problem is being 
discussed as it was at the time, as it might have been, or as it is now. 
The responsibility for that is clearly the responsibility of the com- 
mittee. I am obviously not in a position to know how far the com- 
mittee has exercised its own individual and collective responsibility, 
hoAV far it has delegated it to counsel, or exactly how this has been 
done. 

Senator Ferguson. Might I inquire? Is your complaint, Mr. Lat- 
timore, against the conmiittee, the way it has handled the investiga- 
tion as far as you are concerned, or does it go to the investigation of 
IPR and other people connected with IPR? Is this a charge on all 
matters of investigation, or is it only as it relates to you, tliat you may 
be concerned with the investigation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is a statement, Senator, of my opinion "on the 
record as it stands to date, in wliich I am involved. 

Senator Ferguson. There are many other people involved, also, 
is tliat not correct ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. And tliere is the question of the relationship of 
the IPR with the State Department, is that not correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. If any, j^es. 

Senator Ferguson. Wei], now, you say "if any." Do you tliink 
that there is no connection wliatever between IPR and \\\e State 
Department, or any of the State Department officials? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, you liave used tlie word "connection," 
which may mean different things to different people. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2941 

Senator Ferguson. Tliat is true. 

Mr. Lattimore. At this point I should like, if I may, to say a few 
words as carefully considered as I know how to make them. 

Senator Smith. Did you not ask him a question ? I do not see why 
we cannot have plain, simple answers to the questions. 

Senator Ferguson. Then we will get along quickly. 

Senator O'Conor. Well, I do think that if the question is susceptible 
of a direct answer, that might be made; and then any explanatory 
statement that you might desire to make in connection with it. 

Mr. LAT'riMORE. Senator, I am trying to make a statement on the 
thoughts that are guiding me in making my answers, and I think 
perhaps if I were allowed to express those thoughts at the present time, 
it might clarify other questions coming up, as well as the question 
immediately before the committee. 

Senator O 'Conor. You may proceed. 

Mr. Latitmore. I have been for many years a professional writer. 
I am also a university professor. I am accustomed to a careful use 
of words. I have tried to boil down into 50 pages what I have to 
say about an accumulation of material presented before this com- 
mittee in something like 8 months. I have tried to use firm and pre- 
cise language. 

Yesterday under questioning I felt at times as if perhaps I might 
be giving a defensive or what some people might even think evasive 
or hair-splitting series of answers to many questions. I want to 
make it perfectly clear that I have no intention of evasiveness ; that 
1 have said as clearly as I can what I have to say ; that if there is any 
hair-splitting, or if there is any playing with alternative choices of 
words, that is not my responsibility. It is a consequence of the form 
in which questions are asked me. 

As I said, I have used firm language. Many of the questions that 
have been addressed to me appear — I may be oversensitive on the 
subject — but appear as if they were intended to make me either soften 
my statements or perhaps in frustration say something more strong 
than what I intended to say. 

Gentlemen, I am not a lawyer. I am an innocent man trying to 
defend himself as best he knows how. I may at times be forced by 
this manner of questioning to overstate my reactions. If so, I want 
it to be perfectly clear on the record that these are not my words — 
they are words put into my mouth by the manner of questioning. 

Senator Smith. Could we have one understanding before we pro- 
ceed further, Mr. Chairman, that we are not, or I for one am not asking 
Professor Lattimore on language. As I understand, all we are ask- 
ing him is to state tlie facts in sucli plain and concise language that all 
of us can understand what the answers to a question are, instead of 
having these long, spun-out discussions, including the comment about 
splitting infinitives, which indicates there was some little intention 
to quibble about language. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, I want to assure you that I was not trying 
to put words into your mouth, and I do not intend to so try. I just 
want to ask questions, and I want to leave you out of it as mucli as 
possible. I am not talking about tliis statement, as far as you person- 
ally are concerned now: I am talking about the investigation by this 
committee into what I think is a very, very important matter, and that 
is the question of penetration of communism into institutions of Amer- 

88348—52 — pt. 9 4 



2942 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

ica, and for that matter, into other governments and otlier countries. 
We are fighting a war involving that very principle. And if we have 
to limit our investigation here and be cowed down and fearful that 
we are going to offend someone, then we are not going to get very far 
in advising the people of America on this great problem of penetra- 
tion. And that is why I want to talk about the State Department. 
I want to give every man the right to make statements, freedom of 
thought, freedom of speech, and I will advocate it with him; but I 
think that when that freedom of speech and that freedom of thought 
goes to the department of Government that can influence the action 
of that Government, then the people ought to be able to thoroughly 
go into the matter, not in personalities but in questions of the broad 
principles. That is why I asked you the question here now about the 
State Department and the IPR. 

Forget that you were a trustee for a moment. Let us look into it, 
as you said in the statement. I was a member, yes, I was a member of 
the IPR. I paid nominal dues. I was a judge in Michigan at the 
time that I went into it, and I wanted to learn something about the 
facts. Now, let us forget whether we were members. Let us now look 
at the IPR and try to ascertain whether or not people did penetrate it, 
and what difference does it make to you and to me, except that we 
ought to both want to expose it if people did penetrate it. And to 
think that I sat here, and if you would have been here you would have 
heard people come in and say, "When I wrote those articles for the 
IPR, when I wrote a book that was to be used in the public schools, 
I refused to answer whether or not I was a Communist." 

Mr. Lattimore, I think that you and I ought to be greatly interested 
in the problem as to whether or not the IPR was penetrated by com- 
munism to the extent that Communists wrote books under the label of 
the IPR, that we were members of, and put them in the public schools 
of America. I think that the time has come when you and I ought to 
forget the personal things and try to ascertain for the benefit of the 
United States citizen what is happening by communism, and if we are 
going to deal in personalities and if we are going to have arguments 
about personalities in this investigation, we are never going to advise 
the people. 

Let us look at the IPR, and let us take for granted that the people 
that were running it were innocent ; but, whether they were innocent 
or guilty, if they were penetrated should we not then show tliat to 
the public so that in the future there will be no further penetrations? 

Now, if we can think of it in that way, maybe we can get somewhere. 

Now I will ask you the question, Professor : Did, in your opinion, 
the State Department get information from IPR ? 

Mr. Lati'imore. Senator, I am in agreement with what you sa}", 
especially about not being cowed. 

Senator Fergusox. And I do not want you to be cowed. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am dealing with, I think, all of the questions that 
you have brought up, and I have tried to put them in my statement 
in an orderly manner, and to support what I have to say. I have 
adverted to this matter of the questioning because it contributes, in 
my respectful opinion, to the character of jumbled evidence that I 
referred to before, and it leads very frequently to a request to me to 
give an offhand statement of something that I have later put in my 
prepared statement, in my own words and in my own way, in such 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2943 

a manner that I may later be confronted with possibly quibbles about, 
"You said it this way on interrogation, and you said it that way in 
your statement." 

I think, Senator, it would be much more orderly if I were allowed 
to proceed with my statement, and then to answer any questions you 
like in any order you bring them up. 

Senator O'Conor. Just a second. You are not to determine for 
the committee how it is to proceed. The chairman gave you the right 
this morning to place the entire statement in the record if you so 
desired, or to proceed and have the committee to undertake its inter- 
rogations as you went along. You consulted with counsel as you 
desired to do,'and then you determined that you did not wish to put 
your statement in the record in toto. 

Now, you are not to tell the committee how it is to proceed. The 
question Senator Ferguson asked is a very direct one and a simple 
one, and it admits of a clear answer, and we would like very much 
to have you address yourself to it and answer it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I only meant, Senator, to say how I would like to 
proceed. 

Senator O'Conor. Fortunately, you are not a member of the com- 
mittee, sir, for this purpose. 

Mr. Lattimore. Your question again ? 

Senator Ferguson. I will put it this way 

Senator O'Conor. Let the stenographer read it so the committee 
mi^ght have it before them. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I never worked in the State Department. 

(The question asked by Senator Ferguson was read by the re- 
porter as follows :) 

Now I will ask you the question, Professor : Did, in your opinion, the State 
Department get information from IPR? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have onl}^ an outsider's presumption that mem- 
bers of the State Department got information from IPR publications, 
as they did from any other publications that might interest them, 
on the subject of the Far East. 

Senator Ferguson. The reason I asked you that question was — and 
I think that your answer brings this up now — you defend two or three 
people in this statement, as far as the State Department is concerned, 
and you tell the public in this statement that, for instance, Mr. Clubb 
was freed by the Loyalty Board. And where did you learn that, if 
you know nothing about the State Depai'tment ? 

Mr. Lattimore. From the press. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, I will ask you whether or not you know 
that it is a fact that the State Loyalty Board itself did not clear 
Mr. Clubb, and that Mr. Acheson personally, when it went to him 
for review, was the one who set aside the ruling of the Board and 
freed Mr. Clubb? 

Mr. Latti^iore. I have not seen that in the press. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you whether or not you know it is 
a fact? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, then, are you just quoting here in this 
statement about these people what you learn in the press rather than 
trying to get the facts? You are giving to the public the idea that 



2944 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Clubb was freed by tlie Loyalty Board, and I am asking you 
whether or not you know it was a fact that that was not a fact ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know that it was not a fact. 

Senator Fekgusox. Then why do you give it to this connnittee and 
expect this committee not to ask you any questions ? 

Mr. Lattimore. You are perfectly free to ask me that question^ 
Senator. I have given you my answer. 

Senator Ferguson. And your answer is that you do not know. 
Have you talked to Mr. Clubb about it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have seen jMr. Clubb since he was cleared: yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ask him whether or not the Loyalty 
Board found against him, and then when it went up to Mr. Humeisine 
he approved tlie Loyalty Board, and when it went to Mr. Achesoii he 
reversed the Loyalty Board ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am not either an amateur or a profes- 
sional snooper. 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask you that; and I asked you whether 
or not you asked Mr. Clubb. 

Senator Smith. That is a simple question. 

Mr. Lattimore. I accepted Mr. Clubb's word that he had been 
cleared. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he tell you that he was cleared by the 
Loyalty Board ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was not interested in going into post mortems 
on the fact, and I congratulated him and then we went on to talk 
about other subjects. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he tell you why he had resigned ? 

Mr. Lattimore. On the subject of his resignation, I did not ask 
him why he had resigned. I congratulated him on resigning, and he 
later made a statement to the press that he was resigning at this 
time because he felt that his career had been permanently damaged, 
and that under the system of multiple jeopardy now prevailing, he 
might be haled up again at any other time. I accordingly wrote in 
my statement that he has taken to heart the now obvious lesson that the 
State Department is not a safe place for a man who has been cleared. 
That is my opinion. 

Senator Ferguson. Did 3^011 discuss that with Mr. Clubb — as to why 
he resigned? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did not discuss it with him. Senator Ferguson. 
He is a friend of mine, and an honorable man, and when he said he 
had been cleared, I said, "Thank God." Wliy should I badger him? 

Senator Ferguson. Do j'ou know that the State Department on a 
number of occasions, Mr. Lattimore, has brought the charges, and 
then allowed people to resign; and that up to date, as far as from 
the State Department's view, no one has been discharged for loj'^alty 
reasons, and we will exclude the Clubb situation. I am asking you 
whether or not you know that ? 

Mr. Laiitmore. I do not know it, and it is no concern of mine and 
no duty of mine as a citizen. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, when you raised these questions here 
about certain people in the State Department, I wanted to know 
whether or not you had actual knowledge. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2945 

Senator Smith. Might we inquire as to why — I believe it is on 
page 21 — Professor Lattimore even went into the matter of Mr. Chibb 
at all 1 What was the purpose in doing that? 

Senator Ferguson. That is what I wanted to loiow. 

Senator Smith. If you were not concerned with it, what was the 
purpose of bringing his name into this statement of yours? 

]Mr. Lattimore. Well, Senator, I protest once more at being forced 
to take up my statement disjointedly instead of in the orderly manner 
that I wanted to do, but I would point out to you that on page 20 I 
give my reasons : ^ 

The three outstanding examples of men sacrificed to the hysteria that has 
teen whipped up in this country by the China lobby — a hysteria to which this 
committee, I um sorry to say, is contributing — are — 

And then I go into the names. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire ? 

Senator Fergson. You had no personal knowledge, did you, Mr. 
Lattimore, on the Service and the Clubb and the Vincent, the three 
names that you mentioned here in your statement — you have no per- 
sonal knowledge as to what was in the loyalty reports, and the evidence, 
and the FBI reports ; have you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, all three men are men that I have known 
for years, and all three men are such trustworthy members of the De- 
partment of State that they would not, and I have never asked them 
to, talk to me about the internal mechanisms of the Department of 
State. My concern is — and again I return to my statement, and again 
in a fragment : 

I believe that it is as important to the welfare and safety of this country to have 
a strong State Department and an able Foreign Service in our diplomacy as it 
is to have effective military forces. I believe that^  

Senator Ferguson. I agree with you on that. 
Mr. Lattimore (reading:) 

That the usefulness of our Foreign Servi(^e personnel has already been jeop- 
ardized by the work of this committee — both directly by attacks on irreplaceable 
personnel, and indirectly by impairing the confidence of the Nation and our 
foreign allies in our State Department and by instituting a reign of terror among 
our Foreign Service personnel. 

Senator Ferguson. That was not my question. Mr. Lattimore, but 
I am glad that you read that into the record, and I agree with the first 
part, as I indicated. 

My question is : Do you know what the charges were, and do you 
know what the evidence was, as far as the State Department, the FBI, 
and the Loyalty Board are concerned, on these three people named 
here in your statement? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, am I a citizen of America, or a sub- 
ject of Czechoslovakia or Franco Spain? Am I expected to run 
around snooping on my fellow citizens ? 

Senator O'Conor. Just a moment, Senator Ferguson. 

That statement is entirely unnecessary. The question of Senator 
Ferguson did not call for any such outburst as that. Now, will you 
kindly confine yourself to the question that is asked, and I think if it 
is answered in the same manner in whicli the question is asked, there 
will be no difficultv. 



2946 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Smith. May we have the question read ? 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Senator O'Conor. You either do or you do not know. 

Mr. Lattimore. I Imow the charges as far as they were in the press^ 
and I do not know the procedures or the documents; unUke Senator 
McCarthy, I have not been procuring classified documents. 

Senator Ferguson. I am just asking you whether or not you knew; 
and you say you do not know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. 

Senator Ferguson. That is all. 

Senator O'Conor. Now, counsel desires to inquire. 

Senator Watkins. Yet you passed judgment on all of those situa- 
tions ; did you not ? 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Watkins asked a question. 

Senator Watkins. Now, you say you did not know, and yet you pass 
judgment on each one of these cases and you proceed to characterize 
their treatment. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am standing on the public record as it 
is in the press, as it is in the record of this committee ; and I am some- 
what resentful, I tliink naturally, of the implications that I should 
have constituted myself a private eye of some kind and gone probing 
into matters that are not the ordinary province 

Senator Watkins. That is not an answer to what I asked you. Did 
you or did you not pass judgment on it ? 

]\lr. Lattimore. Pass judgment? I expressed an opinion. 

Senator Watkins. That is in the nature of a judgment that they 
were given unfair treatment. 

Senator Smith. The q,uestion, it seems to me, is whether or not we 
expect him to do any snooping, because that is up to his own conscience 
to determine, and the question is whether or not he was willing to 
make statements in this statement of facts, supposed to be, about 
someone that he had not investigated, and I thought that was what 
Senator Ferguson asked. 

Mr. Lattimore. When it has been stated in the press. Senator, that 
a man has received official clearance, that is sufficient for me. 

Senator O'Conor. All right, now. 

Mr. Sourwine. The witness hasn't answered Senator Ferguson's 
question as to whether Mr. Clubb told him why he, Mr. Clubb, was 
resigning. 

Senator Ferguson. I thinli he answered that by sajdng lie did not. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did the witness say Mr. Clubb did not tell him why 
he was resigning? 

Mv. Lattimore. I told the Senator that I took up the subject by 
congratulating him, and that I then saw Mr. Clubb's statement to the 
press. 

Ml'. Sourwine. Precisely. You told the Senator that you had not 
asked Mr. Clubb about his resignation. 

Mr. Lattimore. I did not ask Mr. Clubb. 

Mr. Sourwine. And you told the Senator that you had read it in 
the press, but you did not answer the question as to whether Mr. Clubb 
told you why he was resigning ; and, now, did he ? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. I said I did not ask Mr. Clubb, and I didn't go into 
any post mortem, and there was no conversation on the subject, 

Mr. Sourwine. Did he tell j^ou why he was resigning ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2947 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; he did not. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. He told you that he was resigning ? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. I assumed that I knew why he was resigning, and 
that was all there was to the conversation. 

]\Ir. SouEwiNE. He told you that he was resigning ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. I think I saw him after his resignation had 
been announced. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. He did not tell you that he was resigning? 

Mr. LxVTTi3i0RE. He didn't tell me beforehand that he was going to 
resign. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You simply met him and congratulated him on it, 
and there was no discussion as to why he had resigned ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. It had already been in the papers with his state- 
ment ? 

Senator O'Conor. Now, if you will, the bottom of page 2, then. 
"We will proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. All kinds of attempts have been made to depict 
me as a Communist or a Soviet agent. I have in fact been falsely 
identified as a fellow traveler, sympathizer, or follower of the Com- 
munist line or promoter of Communist interests. Now I want to 
make my position clear. I am not interested in fine or technical dis- 
tinctions. I am not interested in graduations or degrees of disloyalty. 
I have no use for fancy, legalistic distinctions. I am none of these 
things and have never been. I am not and have never been a Com- 
munist, a Soviet agent, a sympathizer, or any other kind of promoter 
of communism or Communist interests, and all of these are nonsense.. 
I so testified long ago, under oath, before the Tydings subcommittee, 
and I do so again. 

Mr. Sourwine. ]\Ir. Chairman, if I might break in, there are four 
or five questions which have been asked a number of witnesses here,, 
and in order to give Mr. Lattimore an opportunity to make his denial 
completely categorically, I would like to ask those questions : 

Mr. Lattimore, are you now or have you ever been a member of the 
Communist Party of the United States or a member of the Communist 
Party of any other country? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you ever been asked or iiiAnted or urged to 
join the Communist Party of any country? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Were you ever a part of any Communist organiza- 
tion, apparatus, or network? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Were you ever under Communist discipline? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever agTee to accept Communist discipline? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Tliank you. 

Senator O'Conor. Now, proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. One of the most shocking things that has happened 
in the proceedings is that not one of the witnesses against me has ever 
been asked in examination or cross-examination a question that would 
test his motives or his reliability. Most shocking in this respect 
has been the suppression or at least the bland ignoring of evidence 



2948 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

already of record. The counsel of this subcommittee, Mr. Morris, 
was the counsel of the Republican minority of the Senate Subcommit- 
tee on Foreign Relations — the Tydings committee — and therefore had 
intimate knowledge of this record evidence. It has also been widely 
reported in the press. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt the witness at 
that point, I would like to ask this : 

Are you intending to charge Mr. Morris with willful suppression 
of e^ddence? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't profess to know the inside of Mr. Morris' 
mind. 

Senator O'Conor. That was not the question. You were asked 
what was in your mind. 

Mr. Lattimore. What is in my mind is that Mr. Morris had inti- 
mate kno^vledge of this record evidence, and tliat I think it is a shock- 
ing thing that in the proceedings before this committee no mention 
has been made of that fact. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Have you carefully phrased your language for the 
purpose of conveying implications which you do not desire flatly to 
make, of implying charges that you don't care to state? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, that is one of those hair-splitting 
legalistic questions to which I referred, and I do not want to give a 
hair-splitting answer. I have tried to make my language clear and 
firm. I have tried not to imply that I know things which I do not 
know. 

Senator Ferguson. I want to refer the witness to page 2519 of the 
State Depaitment Employee Loyalty Investigation — I think that it 
might better be known as the Tyding-s' investigation — under Senate 
Resolution 231, in going into the question of whether or not they went 
thoroughly into IPR, and yesterday it was brought out that they 
did not have the files of the IPR. Senator Tydings says this : 

There isn't anything, Mr. Morris, that isn't pertinent, and we can keep on 
asking for things, and tliere is no donbt in the world, that would be a good thing 
to get, and you could ask for 5,000 different things ; but we are pretty far away 
from loyalty in the State Department when we get out in the Institute of Pacific 
Relations with our little force. We just haven't got it. 

Does that not indicate that Senator Tydings was not going into the 
question of the Institute of Pacific Relations' and its relation to the 
State Department ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator Ferguson, I was very clearly, in my state- 
ment, referring not to things that the Tydings committee might have 
gone into. I had no more control over the proceedings of the Tydings 
committee than I have over the proceedings of this committee, and I 
was referring specifical ly to matters that are of record in the Tydings 
hearings. 

Senator Ferguson. You see, I am much more interested in the whole 
procedure of the investigation of penetration in the Institute of 
Pacific Relations, and I am not directly interested in the individuals 
that may come up from time to time in that investigation, only as it 
relates to the broad question of penetration into the Institute of Pacific 
Relations, plus the other question of the Institute of Pacific Relations' 
relations to the State Department and making of foreign policy. So 
I feel that the committee has a much broader field, and a more im- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2949 

portant question than even the Tydings committee had, of individuals 
and their loyahy. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator Ferguson, the next passage in my state- 
ment refers to a witness who appeared before the Tydings subcom- 
mittee, and has also appeared before this subcommittee. It illustrates 
exactly what I meant to say. 

Mr. Sotjr'\\t:ne. Before the witness goes to that, if the Chair will 
permit, I would like to get back to this question of the charge against 
Mr. Morris. The witness did not answer the question as to whether 
the language here was intentionally put together for the purpose of 
implying a charge that he does not want to make. If that is not the 
case, it should be very easy to say, "No, I did not." 

Mr, Lattimore. I think that I answered that question, Mr. Sour- 
wine, and I said that my language was carefully chosen not to imply 
things that I do not know ; and I do not know 

Mr. SonRWiNE. That is not an answer to the question. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether INIr. Morris acted in bad 
faith or not. That is a matter for his conscience. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you have an anmius against Mr. Morris, Mr. 
Lattimore ? 

Mr. Latttmore. No ; I have no animus against Mr. Morris. I am 
merely defending myself. 

Mr.' SouR'uaNE. Do you have any feeling against him ? 

Mr. Lattimore. How do you mean ''any feeling" ? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you dislike him? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know him. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you dislike him ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know him. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you have any feeling of enmity or irritation 
against him? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have a feeling of outrage at the way in which 
the evidence before this subcommittee has been stacked, in which he 
took a material part. 

Mr. Souewine. That is what you are expressing here, is that right ? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. I am expressing the fact here that — 

most shocking in this respect has been the suppression, or at least the bland 
ignoring, of evidence already of record. The counsel of this subcommittee, Mr. 
Morris, was the counsel of the Republican minority of the Senate Subcommittee 
on Foreign Relations — the Tydings committee — and therefore had intimate 
knowledge of this record evidence. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You have gone back to read the statement again, 
haven't you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is quite right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Are you going to insist throughout this hearing on 
saying nothing outside of the langiiage that you have said has been 
carefully phrased over months, in this statement ? 

Mr. Lattemore. I am endeavoring. Mr. Sourwine. as I said before, 
not to confuse issues by having words put into my mouth in tlie an- 
swering of questions, thus obscuring what I have clearly and cate- 
gorically said of my own volition. 

Mr. SouRwixE. Do you realize this paragraph you have just con- 
cluded reading will, to any ordinary person who reads it once for 
the first time, convey the impression that you are charging Mr. Morris 
with deliberate suppression of evidence ? 



2950 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Soiirwine, I am referring here to the proceed- 
ings of this subcommittee 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I asked you if you were aware 

Mr. Lattimore. Of which Mr. Morris is only a part. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Are you aware that the original reading of this 
by almost anj^one will convey the impression that you are charging 
Mr. Morris with the deliberate suppression of evidence ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not aware, Mr. Sourwine, of your authority 
to state how the ordinary citizen would react. You are an interested 
party. 

Mr. Sourwine. I asked you if you were aware of that fact. You 
are, as you have stated, a man of education, a man who is a university 
professor ; and now, are you aware that the average reader will get — 
or do you have an opinion as to what impression the average reader 
will get from this ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have an opinion of the impression I intended to 
■convey. 

Mr. Sourwine. Good. Now, what did you intend to convey? 

Mr. Lattimore. I intended to convey that "most shocking in this 
respect has been the suppression or at least the bland ignoring of 
evidence already of record." 

Mr. Sourwine. In other words, you intended to convey — and then 
you state exactly the language which is in here. 

Mr. Lattimore, That is right, and I hope the impression was con- 
veyed. 

Senator SMmi. Professor Lattimore, you say first that there has 
been the suppression. Well, now, are you certain that you meant to 
convey the impression that you spoke with certainty that there had been 
suppression of evidence ? 

Mr. Lattimore. If I had meant that, Senator Smith, I should have 
said so. That is wliy I wrote, "suppression or at least the bland 
ignoring." 

Senator Smith. So that when you said "suppression," you did not 
really mean "suppression," that you had any evidence of suppression ; 
but you are making the statement of either suppression or blancl 
ignoring? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator Smith, the evidence that I have is that the 
great majority of the allegations that have been made against me 
before this subcommittee were previously made before the Tydings 
committee and thoroughly dealt with there, and that this connection 
has never been referred to in the proceedings before this subcommittee ; 
that Mr. Morris was one of the counsel of that committee, and one 
of the counsel of this committee; that the absence of connection in 
the two proceedings indicates either suppression or bland ignoring. 

Senator Smith. Well, now, then that is your answer to what you 
meant when you charge this committee, or at least Mr. Morris, with 
suppression of evidence; that is all the answer you want to give to 
that, is it? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is all of the answer I want to give. 

Senator Smith. Do you think that that is any answer at all when 
you charge a man with suppressing evidence, or do you think that you 
have answered that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am referring to the fact. Senator, that evidence 
has been omitted before this subcommittee. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2951 

Senator Smith. Was anybody attempting to keep you from offering 
any evidence you wanted, if it has been omitted? 

Mr. Lattimore. After 8 months, I have finally been allowed to 
appear here and read a few paragraphs of what I want to say. 

Mr. SoTjRwiNE. In the paragraphs you have already read, have you 
■offered any evidence ? 

Senator O'Conor. Just hold that. 

Have you concluded ? 

Senator Jenner. The witness has stated this matter has been gone 
into thoroughly before the Tydings committee. I think that the 
reading of Senator Ferguson from the Tydings committee shows that 
'they did not have the staff and they did not go into this fully. I be- 
lieve my recollection is probably correct that this investigation pri- 
marily is with IPR, and to show its relationship with the State De- 
partment and the influence it might have had upon the State Depart- 
ment. He says this matter was gone into thoroughly before the 
Tydings committee. The files and the records of the IPR were not 
*ven available. As a result, w£ found them some place up here in a 
barn, stored away, and that is the base of this investigation. So on 
that basis, how could Mr. jSIorris be fully acquainted with all of this, 
and how could it have been thoroughly gone into in the Tydings hear- 
ings when it was not even available? How could it have been sup- 
pressed? I want to ask the witness, on the basis of that fact, how 
it could have been suppressed ? How could it have been thoroughly 
gone into ? 

Senator O'Conor. Do you understand the question ? The question 
is addressed as to how you could contend that that evidence, which 
"was not then available to the Tydings committee, was in fact sup- 
pressed ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, the Tydings committee, I think, investi- 
gated me very thoroughly, and they stated in their conclusions : 

Having found on the evidence before us that Mr. Lattimore is not an employee 
of our State Department, that he is not tlie architect of our far eastern policy, 
and that he is not a spy, our cousidei'ation of him should be concluded, since to 
do otherwise would place us in the anomalous position of passing judgment on 
the ideological disposition of a private citizen. We are constrained, however, 
to make some observations relative to the case in its entirety, not only as a 
matter of elementary fairness to Mr. Lattimore, who traveled half way around 
the world to answer the charges against him, but the scholars and writers 
throughout the country and the American public generally. Owen Lattimore 
is a writer and a scholar who has been charged with a record of procommunism 
going back many years. There is no legal evidence before us whatever to support 
this charge, and the weight of all other information indicates that it is not true. 
We find absolutely no evidence to indicate that his writings and other expressions 
have been anything but honest opinions and convictions of Owen Lattimore. 
Similar opinions and convictions vis-S-vis the Far East are entertained by many 
Americans about whom no conceivable suggestion of Communist proclivities 
could be entertained. We do not find that Mr. Lattimore's writings follow the 
Communist or any other line, save as his very consistent position on the Far 
East may be called the Lattimore line. 

Senator Jexner. That is an opinion of a committee without the 
evidence that this committee has had before it. The Tydings com- 
mittee did not have this evidence before it, and that is an opinion 
they reached on the evidence before their committee. But since that 
committee has concluded its hearings, the files and the records of the 
IPR have been disclosed, and we have obtained them in a barn up 
here in Connecticut or some place. Now, this hearing is based upon 



2952 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

a different set of facts, and so how could you say that the counsel has 
suppressed evidence that was never before the Tydings committee in 
the first place, and how could you say that the Tydings committee 
thorough!}^ went into this when they did not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, the evidence that has been used against 
me before this subcommittee comes only in very small part from the 
files of the Institute of Pacific Relations, illegally taken by this sub- 
committee 

Senator Smith. Wait a minute. Did you say "illegally"? 

Senator O'Conor. Just a second. I do think Mr. Lattimore ought 
to be allowed to complete his sentence. 

Senator Smith. I did not understand whether he said "legally" or 
"illegally." 

Mr. Lattimore, Illegally. 

Senator O'Conor. Proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. The main evidence that has been used against me 
is a regurgitation, with an additional birth now and then, of the stuff 
that was put up before the Tydings subcommittee and dealt with 
there. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you answer, now, why you used the 
phrase that the evidence was "obtained illegally"? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am basing that on the statement of, as I recall, 
Mr. Holland, in his appearance befoi'e this subcommittee. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you accustomed just to repeat a statement 
on the legality or illegality of a matter because one particular wit- 
ness says 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe Mr. Holland, when he was questioned 
about that, replied that he was making a statement on advice of 
counsel. 

Senator Ferguson. Why, Mr. Lattimore, are you defending the 
Institute of Pacific Relations? I can see a reason tliat you miglit be 
greatly upset on your own problems, but why do you bring up this 
question now of defense on the legality or illegality of this committee 
getting records of the Institute of Pacific Relations ? 

Mr.LATTiMORE. Senator, I am dealing with the Institute of Pacific 
Relations only as it is being used in this attempt to make me out to be 
wliat I am not and never have been. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you think if the evidence does prove that 
the Institute of Pacific Relations was penetrated by Communists, that 
that casts a reflection upon you, and therefore you are making these 
statements today, in your own defense ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Would you repeat that question ? 

Senator O'Conor. We will have it read. 

You may consult counsel. 

(Mr. Lattimore conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Ferguson. You have raised the question of legality of this 
conunittee obtaining evidence, and you say that this committee ob- 
tained "illegally," and you are accusing this committee of illegally 
obtaining evidence and using tliat evidence that it illegally obtained. 
Now, that evidence is only evidence from the IPR and not from you. 
I am asking you whether or not it is your contention that if the IPR 
is found to luive been penetrated by Communists, that that will cast a 
reflection on you, and that is the reason that j^ou are raising this ques- 
tion of legality or illegality ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2953 

Mr. Lattimore. xVren't you raising two questions, Senator Fer- 
guson ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. You can answer them, and I made an 

explanation. 

Mr. Lattimore. One question is about the legality of obtaining the 
files, and the other question is about the validity of any evidence con- 
tained in the files. 

Senator Ferguson. I am talking about your defense. You brought 
up the question, indicating in this record that this committee illegally 
obtained evidence, Mr. Lattimore ; and I asked you the question where 
you got that opinion, and you said from Mr. Holland's statement to 
this committee. 

Mr. Lait'Imore. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. And then I went on to ask the question about 
whether or not you took other people's opinion on these questions of 
legality or not, and repeated them; and then I came back to your 
defense of the IPR. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, it is my belief, Senator, throughout my con- 
nection with the IPR, that it was never controlled by Connnunists. 

Senator Ferguson. Was it ever penetrated? 

Mr. Lattimore. A number of people who have refused to answer 
whether they were Communists or not, and therefore presumptively 
may be or may have been Connnunists, worked in the IPR. That is a 
far cry from saying that they controlled or influenced either the IPR 
or me. 

Senator Ferguson. I asked you the question : Was the IPR pene- 
trated? And is there any evidence, in your opinion, in this record 
that the IPR was penetrated by Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, "penetration" is your word, and may I 
ask you what you mean by it ? 

Senator Ferguson. Influenced ; let us use that word now. 

Mr. Lattimore. Because the IPR may have been penetrated in the 
sense that Communists had jobs in the IPR. I have yet to see evidence 
that Communists controlled the IPR. 

Senator Ferguson. I think that you have made the statement that, 
in your opinion, Field, who was connected with the IPR, is a 
Communist. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is certainly my impression. 

Senator Ferguson. And you say that he became a Communist, I 
think, in the 1940's, did you use that ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think that I used that. Somebody else used 
it and I am quite willing to accept it. I did say the forties. 

Senator Ferguson. In 1940. Do you think that the position that 
Mr. Field held in the IPR, as a Communist, on your own statement 
that he was a Communist, had any influence on the IPR? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, the record is that everything published 
by the IPR was always circulated to many readers of diverse quali- 
fications of knowledge and diverse opinions before being published. 
I think that that is by far the strongest safeguard that any private 
institution can have on its output not being biased by the propaganda 
of the Communists or anybody else. 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask you about that. 

Mr. Lattimore. And, therefore, I believe that it is not true that 
Field, or any other Communist, controlled the IPR or its output. 



2954 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. Now, you have used the word "controlled," and 
I have asked for the word "influence." You have taken the defense 
again that they had a mechanism to avoid being controlled, and I am 
not talking about whether they tried to avoid or not. 

Mr. Lattimorp:. I will accept your word. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Influence? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes; influence. I do not believe that the work of 
the IPB, was influenced in a Communist direction or in the service of 
Comnumist propaganda by Field or anyone else. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, then, the difficulty, I think, between you 
and me on this problem is that you take for granted that Communists 
do not have the capacity and the ability to penetrate and influence, 
in a devious way even, against the great efl^ort of honest people. 

My experience on this committee, and I must tell you, Mr. Lattimore, 
is such that the devious activities of Communists, and the way they 
work and manipulate and the way they have worked and manipulated 
all over the world, leads me to believe that you cannot set up in any 
organization that has them in responsible positions any mechanism to 
keep out their activities and their influence, and I think the only way 
that you can do it is not to have them in. 

Now, you may disagree. Do you disagree on that ? 

Mr. LAi^riMORE. On that all I can say is that I am not an expert 
on Communists or communism. I do have some experience in re- 
search woi'k and editing and some experience of putting out a good 
product that is free of propaganda. I Avill go no further than to say 
that tlie IPR was run in such a manner that it had the maximum 
safeguards that a private institution can have in protecting itself 
against these dangers. Wliether it was absolutely successful in every 
sentence, half-sentence, and comma is a matter on which opinions 
might well differ. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think, Mr. Lattimore, that we could 
trust a Communist in a responsible position in IPR; that he would 
not try and actually influence for communism ? What is your opinion 
on that? 

Mr. Lattimore. My opinion is that I would not knowingly employ 
any Communist in the IPR. or a similar organization. To that I can 
only add, as I have said in my statement, that in the 1930's, no private 
organization was running a private FBI to sift and check its personnel, 
and that our sole standard was not to promote any propaganda, but to- 
promote free presentation of information and discussion of that in- 
formation. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think, Mr. Lattimore, today — let us look 
at it as of today — that any Communist can fairly present the facts and' 
not actually use facts as propaganda to further communism? 

Mr. Latti3iore. Senator, I have just stated that I would not myself 
knowingly employ a Communist, and it is for those reasons that I 
wouldn't. 

Senator Ferguson. That answers my question ; you and I agree on 
that. 

Senator O'Conor. Would you resume, then, Mr. Lattimore? One 
suggestion occurs to me, which I would like to see if counsel and all 
agree on : That it appears that from this point up until page 9, there is 
one segment of the matter that possibly could be given, to the best in-- 



INSTITUTE or PACIFIC RELATIONS 2955 

terests of all, uninterruptedly ; and so, if that is given as a whole, it 
might admit, then, of better discussion and consideration. 

Mr. FoRTAS. That is splendid. Senator. 

Senator O'Conor. For the purpose of expedition, I offer that as a 
suggestion, that you should proceed, and that would be a very proper 
way in which to proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. I will cite just one example, a ratlier striking one — 
that of Louis F. Buclenz. 

The proceedings of the Tydings committee show that Budenz's ac- 
cusations of me before that subcommittee were a complete fabrication 
concocted for the specific purpose of his appearance tliere. They show 
(1) that until he was recruited to tell his fantastic yarn, Budenz never 
mentioned me to the FBI despite liundreds of hours of testimony 
(transcript, p. 1116) ; (2) that in 1949 when he wrote an article for 
Collier's, denouncing many persons for their participation in the 
Chinese situation, Budenz made no mention of me (transcript, p. 
1096) ; (3) that when he published a book in 1950 dealing with the 
same subject, he made no reference to me in his manuscript, inserting 
a passing mention only after I was publicly attacked by Senator 
McCarthy (transcript, p. 1115). All of this material was available to 
your committee, and your counsel, Mr. Robert Morris, was thorouglily 
familiar with it, but not one syllable of it was entered in your record 
nor was Mr. Budenz asked a single question concerning it. 

In connection with this man Budenz, Senators, I call your attention 
to the fact that the personal history and character of Louis Budenz 
was thoroughl}' gone into in the hearings before the Tydings commit- 
tee in 1950. 

This man, when he became a functionary of the Communist Party, 
was neither a dupe nor a visionary. He was a hard-bitten man of 44, 
and his own sworn testimony, contained in the official transcript of the 
deportation proceedings entitled "In the Matter of Desideriu Ham- 
mer, Alias John Santos, Respondent in Deportation Proceedings File 
No. A-6002664" shows that he was already, before becoming a Com- 
munist, a man of immoral life. 

I exposed him as a liar before the Tydings committee. Since then 
a distinguished newspaperman, Mr. Joseph Alsop, has publicly chal- 
lenged him as a perjurer, and has demanded of this committee that the 
record of Budenz' testimony be sent over to the Department of Justice 
for examination to see whether he should be prosecuted for perjury. 

Before the Tydings committee, Budenz was an uneasy and evasive 
liar who weaseled and retreated when his credibility was questioned, 
but before this committee every question that was addressed to him was 
an invitation to make the most imaginative and inventive use of what 
Mr. Joseph Alsop has aptly called "the built-in pick-up" in his mem- 
ory. Thus admonished, drilled, and exhorted to take heart and fear 
not, he proceeded to bring up his old, disproved charges with a new 
assurance and with new embroideries and embellishments. 

In the Tydings hearings, Budenz finally said, "I have never seen any 
vestige of his [Lattimore's] Communist Party membership." Sena- 
tor Lodge attempted to get Budenz to state "a specific instance when 
an order or an instruction was given [to Lattimore] and carried out" 
(p. 1134). After hesitating and weaseling, Budenz said: "Well, the 
order to represent the Chinese Communists as agrarian reformers 



2956 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

was certainly carried out." Then, when Senator Lodge asked, "Is 
that the most concrete and specific illustration there is ?" Budenz then 
said, "That is the most concrete, yes, sir" (p. 1134). 

Now, it was clearly established in the Tydings committee hearings 
that in fact I had never called the Chinese Communists "agrarian 
reformers," nor had Pacific Affairs carried articles calling them agra- 
rian reformers, with the si"ngle exception of an article by a Chinese 
Communist, which was clearly labeled as such, and was presented as 
an example of what the Chinese Connnunists were saying. It was thus 
clearl}^ brought out that Budenz was not only lying when he said that 
I "carried out an order" but lying in the dark and by guesswork. 

Before the Tydings committee, Budenz backed away when asked to 
show whether he really knew anything about my writings or opinions. 
Senator Green summed it up : 

Then, you say you have never seen him, never talked with him, never liad any 
communication with liim, you have read none of his books to speak of, none of 
liis articles to speak of. 

Now, it is characteristic of this man and of this dark world of 
intrigue, that your counsel, Mr. Morris, carefully refrained in the 
hearings before you from asking Budenz whether he had read my 
writings. If he had, Budenz would have had the choice of plain, not 
fancy, perjury or confessing that he had no basis for his charges. 
Instead, Mr. Morris and Budenz sought to achieve just as good a gen- 
eral effect. Mr. Morris obligingly asked "Subsequent to that time, did 
you follow the publication Pacific Affairs?" and Budenz obligingly 
replied, "Yes, although, of course, today that is not all fresh in my 
memory." 

Before the Tydings committee it was brought out that when Bu- 
denz was in conference with an editor of Collier's magazine and not 
protected by congressional immunity, he stated (p. 1096) that he was 
not saying I "acted as a Communist agent in any way." Before this 
subcommittee, however, knowing he would be protected, he lied glibly 
and obligingly (p. 1016). 

Senator Ferguson. I think I will ask a question there. Do you 
think that Mr. Budenz is protected from perjury as far as the Depart- 
ment of Justice is concerned for his statement before this committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is a legal question. I do not know what 
the answer is. 

Senator Smith. You made the statement. 

Senator Ferguson. You have made the statement. 

Mr. FoRTAs. May he confer with counsel ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. He has made that statement. 

Mr. Lattimore. He is protected from libel action by me, I under- 
stand. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes; but not from perjury. Mr. Lattimore, as 
I understand it, you feel that this whole question of perjury, as far 
as you are concerned and as far as Mr. Budenz is concerned, ought 
to be referred to the Justice Department. Your counsel has just said 
that they can take it up on reference. 

There is not any doubt that you accuse Budenz of perjury, is there? 

Mr. Latitmore. Senator, I have been reminded several times that 
this committee makes its own procedure. If this committee, in its 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2957 

discretion, wants to refer my case to the Justice Department they are, 
of course, free to do so. My opinion is the case of Budenz should 
be referred to the Justice Department. 

Senator Ferguson. I understand. Now, of course, if they are going 
to convict Mr. Budenz of perjury as to what he said to you, then 

Mr. Lattimore. He didn't say anything. 

Senator Ferguson. No; about you in this committee. The only 
way that it could be referred would be to refer to your statements 
and his statements, so that the Justice Department 

Mr. Lattimore. And Mr. Alsop's, and Mr. Vincent's statements, 
and Mr. Wallace's statements. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; refer them all to the Department of Jus- 
tice. Is that correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is in your discretion, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. From what you are saying here, accusing Bu- 
denz of absolute perjury, do I understand that you do accuse him of 
perjury ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am not a lawyer. 

Senator Ferguson. I am trying to get some information. If you 
do, then I would recommend to this committee that they do refer this 
matter. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am not aware of the precise legal dis- 
tinctions here between a liar, a liar under oath, and a perjurer. You 
are a lawyer. I will just ask you which of those terms is the strong- 
est ? Tell me the strongest one and that is the one that I want to use. 

Senator Ferguson. Perjury implies that he willfully testified false- 
ly, knowingly. 

Mr. Lattimore. Is that the strongest term ? 

Senator Ferguson. I think that is the strongest. 

Mr. Lattimore. O. K., that is my term. He is a perjurer. 

Senator Ferguson. Then if you say that now, then I say that I will 
recommend to this committee that the matter be referred to the De- 
partment of Justice. 

Senator Watkins. I would like to ask one thing. 

Senator O'Conor. Senator Watkins, if you would not mind, we 
would like for him to complete this segment. 

Senator Watkins. It is on the very same thing. I noticed that he 
said, before the Tydings committee, it was brought out that when 
Budenz was in conference with an editor of Collier's magazine and 
not protected by congressional immunitj' — as a matter of fact, he was 
protected by congressional immunity when he was before the Tydings 
committee, was he not, the same as he would be here? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would have to ask a legal question on that. 

Senator Watkins. You are giving a legal opinion. 

Mr. Lattimore. The conference that he had with Collier's is out- 
side of the Congress. 

Senator Watkins. The testimony of Budenz was when Budenz was 
before the committee, at the same time. 

Mr. Lattimore. The point I am making is simply that when Budenz 
was out of the shelter of the Congress and was asked a straight ques- 
tion by somebody, he refused to lie. 

Senator O'Conor. I interpreted your statement to mean that you 
are referring only to the Collier's conference. 

88348— 52— pt. 9 5 



2958 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I am referring only to the Collier's conference. 

Senator O'Conor. That is in indicating that that was not protected 
by the immunity ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Watkins. As I get it from the sentence there, it seems 
rather vague and indefinite. 

Before the Tydings committee it was brought out — 

Was it brought out from Budenz or was it brought out from some- 
body else ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I will continue with the statement. 

Morris. Was Lattimore discussed as a Communist? 

Budenz. Instructions were given to him as a member of the Communist cell ; 
yes, sir. 

I recall to your minds that Mr. Morris was present throughout the 
Tdyings committee hearings and knew that Budenz had backed away 
from saying that I had acted as "a Communist agent in any way." 
Yet this same Mr. Morris is the one who invited Budenz, from the 
borrowed immunity of his presence before this subcommittee, to testi- 
fy that I received instructions as a member of a Communist cell. If 
the precise phrases used mean anything different, it is too subtle for 
me. To my non-Communist mind, Budenz said one thing to Collier's, 
and the opjjosite here. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Sour wine, you indicated you had some ques- 
tions. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, I have several questions over that 
matter that has just been traversed. 

Senator Ferguson. I just wanted to say, Mr. Lattimore, you realize, 
in referring this matter of Budenz to the Justice Department, they 
would then have to determine who committed the perjury. Is that 
not correct ? 

Mr. Lattimore. You mean whether Budenz 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, in bringing a charge. 

Mr. Lattimore. I imagine Budenz will be referred to the Justice 
Department. It would be a question of whether Budenz committed 
perjury. 

Senator Ferguson. But then you would not want your testimony 
referred ? 

Mr. Lattimore. You mean that the price of accusing anybody of 
perjui-y is to be accused of perjury yourself? 

Senator Ferguson. One of the statements has to be false. That is 
correct. Either you are correct or Budenz is correct. That is, to de- 
termine whether Budenz is guilty of perjury. 

Mr. Lattimore. My belief that Budenz is a perjurer could be 
proved or disproved. 

Senator Smith. ^^Hiat he means, Mr. Lattimore, as I understand 
that which Senator Ferguson is driving at, is that you and Mr. Budenz 
have made diametrically opposed statements. That is true, is it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Smith. Statements of fact, and both of you have made 
them under oath. That is true, is it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Smith. Now then, if one is right the other is wrong. The 
one that is wrong is the one that has committed perjury. That is 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2959 

what Senator Ferguson is getting at. There would have to be an 
inquiry by the Department'as to whether you or Mr. Budenz had been 
the one to commit perjury. 

Senator Watkins. And if they determined that you are the one 
who told the untruth, then you would be prosecuted for perjury. 
That is what they should do. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, I know that I am not a liar of any 
kind. I believe that the evidence shows that Budenz is a perjurer. 
I should like to see the indications of Mr. Budenz's perjury followed 
up, and lead where they may. 

Senator Watkins. 1 think that it proper. It should be referred, of 
course. 

Senator Ferguson. These two gentlemen cannot both be right. He 
says that they are opposite. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I ask the indulgence of the committee to ask 
a few questions over the several pages which the witness has just fin- 
ished reading ? 

Senator O'Conor. Will you proceed please, Mr. Sourwine? 

Mr. Sourwine. On page 4, Mr. Lattimore, under the sub point that 
you have numbered 3, you refer to a manuscript presumably the manu- 
script of a book published by Mr. Budenz in 1950. Have you ever seen 
that manuscript ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have never seen the manuscript myself. The 
question was brought up in the hearings before the Tydings subcom- 
mittee. I would recommend that they be reviewed by this subcom- 
mittee. 

Mr. Sourwine. The page references which you give here, are they 
to the printed hearings or to the typed and mimeographed transcript? 

Mr. Lattimore. They are to the typed and mimeographed tran- 
script. 

Mr, Sourwine. In the paragraph at the bottom of page 

Senator Smith. One moment, please. Right there. Professor Latti- 
more, you said "he made no reference to me in his manuscript." 

If you did not see and had not seen the manuscript, how could you 
make that statement under oath yourself ? 

JNIr. Lattimore. Senator, I believe that if the committee will in- 
vestigate that transcript, which has not apparently been done yet, 
it will be found that I made that statement on the admission of 
Budenz, 

Senator Smith. I never asked you that. You said "in his manu- 
script." 

Mr, Lattimore. Yes, 

Senator Smith. You said "he made no reference to me in his manu- 
script." You just said a moment ago, as I understood it, that you had 
not seen the manuscript. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is the result of questioning of Mr. Budenz. 

Senator Smith. Do you still understand you are testifying under 
oath ? 

Mr, Lattimore, Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith. Then how can you testify under oath that he made 
no reference to you in the manuscript if you had not seen the manu- 
script? I just want to test the ability of you to make statements of 
that sort. 



2960 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Mr. MoBGAN. Now going back, Mr. Budenz  

Senator Smith. What are you reading from ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The transcript of the Tydings subcommittee. 

Senator Smith. That is something that was beyond your knowl- 
edge was it not? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was there, Senator. 

Senator Smith. I asked you the simple question how could you 
swear that he made no references in the manuscript after you said 
you had not seen the manuscript ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I have here a statement that "The proceed- 
ings of the Tydings committee show — ". And it repeats "they 
show — ." Now everything that follows below there is a reference to 
what the proceedings of the Tydings committee shows. It is not a 
statement of my own knowledge. 

Senator Smith. You said he made no reference "to me in his manu- 
script." 

Mr. Lattimore. I said that comes, Senator, without a full stop 
under the sentence beginning "They show — — ." 

Senator Smith. That is so far as you are concerned, and that is 
,not sworn testimony so far as you are concerned ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is sworn testimony and that is in the Tydings 
committee. 

Senator Smith. Is that a statement of sworn testimony of fact 
by you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, you are getting me confused. 

Senator Smith. I do not mean to confuse you. I asked you a simple 
question. When you put something in the statement here, and after 
yon had already testified you had not seen it, the manuscript, that 
is a simple question. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am testifying that I did not see the manu- 
script, and that I am basing my statement on sworn testimony before 
the Tydings committee. 

Senator Smith. But not your sworn testimony, not your sworn 
statement ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't. 

Senator Smith. All right. That is what I was getting at. 

Senator O'Conor. All right, gentlemen. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I continue, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, Mr. Sourwine, will you continue, please. 

Mr. Sourwine. The full paragraph at the bottom of the page 

Mr. Lattimore. May I complete that reference first ? 

Senator O'Conor. Go ahead. 

Mr. Lattimore. By introducing what the testimony was before the 
Tydings committee, may I complete it ? 

Mr. Sourwine. You have given your page reference, Mr. Lattimore, 
to the testimony you were referring to. We are going to recess here 
at half past 12. That has been stated. May counsel have permission 
to traverse what you have already read as to your statement? 

Mr. FoRTAS. I believe the chairman ruled on that. 

Senator O'Conor. It is permissible to make reference to the tran- 
script of the other proceedings upon which the witness said he relied, 
and you can do that. You have done it by way of page reference now^ 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2961 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, my feeling is that reference by page num- 
ber was adequate in the first instance, but is not adequate since the 
questioning by Senator Smith; that Senator Smith's ehiboration by 
questioning entitles me to read the more detailed record myself. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, there is another problem involved 
there, there is a problem of cross-examination by us of the men who 
made the statements in that testimony, and therefore that ought not to 
go into this record except by reference. We do not want to adopt that 
as truthful testimony because we do not know. 

Senator O'Conor. I think it is a very simple issue. What portion 
of that, Mr. Lattimore, do you refer to ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My reference in my statement is to page 1110. The 
fuller reference would be page 1114, beginning with Mr. Morgan's 
questioning of Budenz about his book, and the course of publication, 
and ending with the answer to a question, by Budenz, near the top 
of 1115. 

Mr. SouRWiisrE. May that be inserted ? 

Senator O'Conor. That will be inserted in full. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 460" and is as 
follows :) 

State Department Emplotee Loyalty Investigation Hearings Before a Sub- 
committee OF THE Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 
Eighty-first Congress 

[Pt. 1, pp. 518-519] 

Mr. Morgan. Now, going back, Mr. Budenz, to a further matter, I believe you 
have presently with publishers a book; is that correct? 

Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. What is the title of the book? 

Mr. Budenz. Men Without Faces. 

Mr. Morgan. And who publishes it? 

Mr. Budenz. Harper & Bros. 

Mr. Morgan. What theme have you developed in this book? 

Mr. Budenz. Well, the name suggests the theme. The name is not arbitrary. 
It is because of the fact that we were forbidden to photograph most of the 
leaders of the Communist Party — that is, Biddleman, Tractenberg, or the secret 
heads of the Communist Party — we had a rule we were forbidden to photograph 
them. That is why the name of the book, because it indicates the Soviet fifth 
column in this country. The book exposes the Soviet fifth column in this country. 
I know, because I am in it. 

Mr. Morgan. Do you develop in this book this picture which you are giving 
us todfty, this picture about the 1937 and the 1943 and the 1944 incidents? 

Mr. Budenz. No, sir; I do not. 

Mr. Morgan. Do you refer to Mr. Lattimore in this book? 

Mr. Budenz. No, sir ; I did not, and there is a specific reason, because if I were 
to refer to Mr. Lattimore I would be in the same peculiar situation I was in 
in the Wallace situation. In fact, the Wallace situation w^as the cause of my 
not putting Mr. Lattimore in this book. The only time that I put Mr. Lattimore 
in the book was to identify Mr. John S. Service. 

Mr. Morgan. What was that? 

Mr. Budenz. Mr. John S. Service. Service. And because I made a slight error 
of fact about Mr. Service, saying that he had advised Mr. Wallace, I corrected 
that to say "advised Mr. Wallace in the Government with Owen J. Lattimore." 
That is being made because of the error. Now, the thing 

Senator Smith. That will not be admitted in. 

Senator Ferguson. No, that will just be inserted into the record. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. This paragraph at the bottom of page 4, sir, where 
you say that the personal history and character of Louis Budenz was 
thoroughly gone into in the hearings before the Tydings committee in 



2962 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS  

1950, by whom was that gone into ? "Who testified with regard to the 
personal history and character of Louis Budenz? Not in addition 
to anything, but who testified in regard to it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. There was some testimony by Budenz in examina- 
tion, I believe, and then there was also the official transcript of the 
deportation proceedings. 

Mr. SouEwiNE. You are talking about the Santos transcript that 
you mentioned at the top of the next page, that is what you are 
referring to when you say it was thoroughly gone into ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Partly that and partly, I believe, the interrogation. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Of Mr. Budenz himself ? 

Mr. Lattemore. Himself, yes. I haven't got that reference exactly 
at the moment. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you have anything to do with offering that 
Santos transcript? 

Mr. Lattimore. That Santos transcript, Mr. Sourwine, was sub- 
mitted to my counsel, Mr. Fortas, and I would prefer to have him 
answer on that. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where he got it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know where he got it. 

Mr. Sourwine, Did he ever tell you where he got it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Did you ever tell me where you got it? 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, we are asking you. 

Mr. Fortas. May he consult with counsel ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. No, he didn't. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was there any cross-examination ? 

Mr. Fortas. I can make a statement as counsel, on this, if you want 
me to. 

Senator P^erguson. I think we ought to let the questioning go on and 
find out what the witness knows first, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether there was any questioning 
about that Santos transcript as such? 

Mr. Lattimore. As I remember, it was handed up in a sealed en- 
velope with the suggestion that the Tydings committeee should con- 
sider it, and advising them to consult their discretion on putting it into 
the record. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it printed as a part of the record of the Tydings 
hearings ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe it was. 

Senator Ferguson. Who handed it up, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. As I remember, sir — I can check with my counsel, 
but my memory is that my counsel handed it to counsel of the com- 
mittee. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Fortas handed it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. To Mr. Morgan, I believe, or to the chairman of 
the committee. You can ask him. 

Senator Ferguson. Had you seen it before? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had not seen it. 

Senator Ferguson. You had not seen it before it was handed up in 
a sealed envelope? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever seen it? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2963 

Senator Ferguson. Then how do you make this statement in tliis 
record if you have never seen this matter? 

Mr. FoKTAS. Do you want a statement of counsel ? 

Senator Fergusoist. No; I want to know how he makes this state- 
ment. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Fortas, I think at this juncture it is proper 
for the Senator to ask that. 

Senator Ferguson. What is the page number that you are reading 
from ? 

Mr. Lattimore. From page No. 5. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was it summarized, Mr. Lattimore, before the 
Tydings committee ? 

Senator Ferguson. You accused him of being an immoral person, 
a man of immoral life, and you give a proceeding in a record that you 
have never seen. Do you not indicate to this committee, when you 
make that statement, that you did see it and you were testifying to 
that as a fact, that that record did show it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I can check with my counsel to see what 
his memory of tliis is, but my recollection is that he handed this up 
to the counsel or to the committee, and that I asked him what that w^as, 
and he said sometliing about it is too filthy for you to need to read, or 
something of that sort. 

Senator Ferguson. But here you make a specific charge from a doc- 
ument, and it now turns out that you had some information from your 
counsel which would be hearsay, that this was too filthy for you to 
read or to bother with, as your words go. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, this is hearsay. It can be checked very 
easily. Get the documents and look at them. 

Senator Ferguson. No; I am asking as to what you say to this 
committee. You are asking this committee to believe this document. 
You are reading it as testimony and you are past that point, and you 
ask this committee to believe you when you said that that document 
contained this information. Now it turns out that you never saw that 
document. 

Senator O'Conor. Let the record show that the witness consulted 
with his counsel in the meantime. Proceed with your answer. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have just consulted with my counsel and he re- 
minded me of something that I had forgotten, that Senator Chavez 
had made reference to this on the Senate floor. 

Senator Ferguson. Are joix then quoting Senator Chavez? 

Mr. Lattimore. I will be glad to add that reference to the testimony 
in my statement. 

Senator Ferguson. It still makes it hearsay, as far as you are con- 
cerned. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I don't know exactly what fine distinction 
you are driving at. Senator. But I think the matter is easily settled. 
Get a hold of the transcript. 

Senator Smith. I think the point, Mr. Chairman, is that this witness 
here has put in a statement, sworn to as sworn testimony, and now he 
admits that he had never seen the document about which or from which 
he was quoting or making statements. 

If that is the way most of this statement of yours has been made up, 
then I can see we are justified in thinking that this is jumbled as well 
as the testimony in the rest of the proceedings has been jumbled, as 



2964 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

you suggest. Wliy did you make that statement, Mr. Lattimore, if you 
did not know, of your own knowledge, it was the truth ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, if you would like me to read it and make it 
direct testimony — I understand it is a rather distasteful thing to read — 
I will go through with it. 

Senator Smith. I am not asking you that. I am not asking you 
that, Mr. Lattimore. I am asking you why did you put in here a state- 
ment that you are to introduce as sworn evidence when you had not 
even read the statement to which you are referring? 

Mr. Lattimore. Because the record of the Tydings committee shows 
that it was submitted. 

Senator Ferguson. But you do not know is in it yet, do you, of your 
own knowledge ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not of my own knowledge. 

Senator Smith. All right. Then you are swearing to something you 
did not know. You made that statement here. 

Mr. Lattimore. I know that Senator Chavez said that he was a man 
of immoral life. 

Senator Smith. Senator Chavez can speak for himself. 

Mr. Lattimore. I will be glad to add him. 

Senator Smith. You made a statement of fact there that you did not 
have in your possession at the time you made it; is that right? 

Mr. Lattimore. I made the statement that this document exists, and 
that its contents are of a certain character, and I am perfectly pre- 
pared to have my statement tested by a checking of the contents. 

Senator Smith. And you say that it showed he was already, before 
becoming a Communist, a man of immoral life? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is my understanding. 

Senator Smith. You made that statement without even reading the 
document to which you refer. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have made that statement, Senator, with reference 
to a supporting document, which is a great deal more than has been 
done in the case of some of the evidence offered against me before this 
subcommittee. 

Senator Smith. But you had not read the supporting documents? 

Mr. Lattimore. I knew of the existence of the supporting docu- 
ments. 

Senator Smith, But you had not read it. Will you answer a simple 
question ? You had not read it, had you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. Senator, do not badger me like that. 

Senator Smith. I am not Ijadgering you. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, it was a question you could answer 
"yes" or "no." Nobody is badgering you. 

_ Mr. Lattimore. I have already answered, I have done it several 
times, and he is badgering me to say it again. 

Senator O'Conor. The answer is "No," that you did not read it 
prior to making this statement. 

Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, you say that Senator Chavez used 
statements upon the Senate floor in relation to that document; is 
that correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. In relation to Budenz and this document was 
among the references that he made. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2965 

Senator Ferguson. Yes; now I will ask you the question as to 
whether or not you know where Senator Chavez received this infor- 
mation that he repeated on the floor, or that he stated on the floor ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no idea. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you read his speech ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I read his speech. 

Senator Ferguson. And you have not any idea where he received 
the information? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not recall now, after 2 years, whether he stated 
where he received it or not. I can just make reference to these 
proceedings. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not he received it 
from your counsel ? 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no. 

Senator Ferguson. Had you talked to the Senator before he made 
the statement? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk to him after ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you do not know where he received the 
information ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. And you are quoting this here, that Budenz 
was of immoral life, without ever seeing the document or to know 
actually of your own knowledge what was in it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes • with very specific references to the document 
making it easily identifiable and verifiable. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that it is worse to accuse a man, 
without personal knowledge, of immoral life than it is to accuse him 
of being a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, I am referring to a specific docu- 
ment which can easily be verified. That is not in the same class as 
the Irind of hearsay evidence that has been offered against me. 

Senator Ferguson. You think it is different ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it is very different. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is that document available to you, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not know if I could get it by going to the 
archives of the Tydings committee or not. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. \I!hairman, may we inquire of counsel with re- 
gard to that document ? 

Senator O'Conor. As a matter of fact, I think counsel volunteered 
or desired to state how it was procured. 

Mr. FoRTAS. I should like to make a statement. The rules of this 
committee say, whatever that means, that counsel may not testify ; but 
this is a statement of counsel, that I ask to be allowed to make on this 
subject. 

The procedure before the Tydings committee in which I represented 
Mr. Lattimore included a provision to the effect that counsel for any 
witness might hand to the committee counsel written questions and 
supporting material. In the course of the hearings which were highly 
publicized, as you will recall, concerning Mr. Lattimore before the 
Tydings committee, a lawyer here in Washington telephoned me and 
said that he had a transcript which would be of interest to me. I told 
him that I should be very interested to receive it. 



2966 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

The transcript came over. The transcript was the one referred to 
on page 5 of Mr. Lattimore's statement here. I read the transcript. 
The transcript was of such a nature and made reference in intimate 
detail to a man's personal life, that man being Budenz. The character 
of the transcript was such that I concluded that it had a bearing upon 
Mr. Budenz's credibility as a witness. But it was also such that I con- 
cluded that I did not want to have anything to do with making it 
public. 

I consulted with Mr. Lattimore about that. I do not recall whether 
he read the transcript or not. I do remember, I am certain that I des- 
cribed to him the contents of the transcript. 

I then put the transcript in a sealed envelope and handed that tran- 
script to Mr. Morgan, who was then counsel of the Tydings committee, 
and I believe that^I — I haven't checked this, but either informally or 
on the record the Tydings committee was advised that the transcript 
that was in this sealed envelope, that its nature was such that I felt that 
it should be examined by the committee — perhaps this was in Mr. Lat- 
timore's statement, perhaps he said it — that it should be examined by 
the committee privately and should not be automatically made a part of 
the record. The reason for that, again, being that the transcript con- 
tained matters relating to Mr. Budenz's private life which I found to 
be quite distasteful, but also quite relevant to the issue of Mr. Budenz's 
credibility, that being a legal judgment. 

That is what happened, and I handed the transcript up and I don't 
recall whether there was any further reference to it in the Tydings 
committee proceeding. 

Senator Ferguson. Did it become a part of the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. Would you wait just a moment? 

Mr. FoRTAs. If I am making a statement as counsel, I wish to finish. 

Senator O'Conor. You will be permitted to. Go ahead. I think, 
Senator Ferguson, he ought to be permitted to finish the statement. 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to know, first, before we get the 
statement, whether it became part of the record of the Tydings com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. FoRTAs. I assume so. Senator. 1 don't know. I haven't checked 
the records. 

Senator Ferguson. Did it ever appear in the press ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. No. I was going on to the next part of the story. 

Senator Smith. May I ask you. Did Mr. Budenz ever hear of it, or 
was he ever faced with it ? That is to say, did he ever have a chance 
to deny it, or what? 

Mr. Fortas. Senator, I don't recall. I haven't checked the Tydings 
committee records. 

The next part of the story is that Senator Chavez made a speech 
on the Senate floor attacking Mr. Budenz. Perhaps I should not 
characterize the Senator's speech. But the Senator made a speech 
on the Senate floor in which he made reference to Mr. Budenz, and 
made reference to this transcript. I believe — I haven't checked it — 
that he used the words that Mr. Lattimore has used in this statement. 

I did not see Senator Chavez before that. Senator Chavez did not 
obtain the transcript from my office. We did not have the transcript. 
As a matter of fact, the transcript was never returned to us. 

Now, Mr. Morris wrote an article for the Freeman Magazine — is 
that the name of it?— in which he said that Mr. Lattimore must have 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2967 

obtained this transcript from a — I don't have the article, and this is 
not a precise quote — the effect of it wjis that Mr, Lattimore must have 
obtained the transcript from a Communist lawyer. 

Mr. Lattimore did not obtain the transcript at all. The transcript 
came into my possession in the manner that I have described. It came 
to me from a Washington lawyer; and if the committee is insistent 
upon it. I will give the committee this lawyer's name, with his 
permission. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Sourwine, had you asked that? 

Mr. Sourwine. I had not asked who the lawyer was who offered 
you and subsequently gave you this transcript. 

Mr. FoRTxVS. With the permission of the lawyer concerned, I state 
that tlie lawyer who gave me this transcript is Joseph F. Fanelli, of 
this cit3\ 

I hasten to say that I have known him for many years ; that in my 
opinion he is a liighly reputable, very fine, non-Communist member 
of the bar of this city. 

Mr. SouRWi>rE. Has counsel completed his statement ? 

Mr. FoRTAs. Yes. 

Mr. Sour"\\t:ne. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand first a telegram 
addressed by the chairman of this committee to Mr. Edward Shaugh- 
nessy, district director, immigration, 70 Columbus Avenue, New York, 
N. Y. I ask permission to read it into the record. 

Senator O'Conor. Proceed. 

Mr. SouRWTXE. It is dated February 25, 1952, and reads as follows : 

Re your DD files letter to Victor Lasky, New York World-Telegram, May 18, 
1950, reading: "Dear Mr. Lasky: Reference is made to your letter of May 16, 
1950, relative to a story appearing in the New York World-Telegiam and Sun 
of May 16, 1950, which stated, among other things, that only one copy of the 
hearings involving John Santo was ever released by immigration authorities and 
that went to Harry Sacher. Our records here disclose that only one copy of 
the deportation hearings in the John Santo case was furnished to any one not 
an official of the Department of Justice and that was to Harry Sacher, attorney 
for John Santo. I do not have any dehnite knowledge as to how, if Mr. Latti- 
more's attorneys procured a transcript of the Santo hearing, it was accomplished. 
Sincerely yours. Edward J. Shaughnessy." Confirm contents of letter by reply 
wire. 

Senator Pat McCakran, 
Senate Internal Security Suhcommittee. 

I now have, Mr. Chairman, the teletype which has been delivered to 
the committee this morning, bearing the receipt date February 26, 
11 : 26 a. m., 1952, marked with the stamp of the General Services 
Administration, confidential copy, reading as follows : 

Hon. Pat McCarran, 

United States Senate: 

Answering your telegram of yesterday, content of my letter referred to is 
hereby confirmed. 

Edw. J. Shattghnessy, 
District Director, Immigration Service, New York City. 

Senator O'Conor. They will be admitted into evidence. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 461 and 
462," and were read in full.) 

Senator O'Conor. As previously announced, we will take a recess at 
this time for 1 hour. The committee is in recess. 

(Wliereupon, at 12 : 35 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 1 : 35 p. m., the same day.) 



2968 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

AFTER RECESS 

Senator Ferguson (presiding). The committee will come to order. 
You may proceed, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, at the recess I had begun asking 
Mr. Lattimore several q^uestions covering pages 5 through 8 of his 
statement which he had just completed reading. We were discussing 
the matter of the Santos transcript. It might be well if we conclude 
the discussion of that. 

I should like, in order to clear up one point with regard to the 
Santos transcript, to ask a question of counsel, since counsel for the 
witness has made a statement about that matter. Will the Chair per- 
mit that ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. I would like to inquire whether you know whether 
Mr. Fanelli, from whom you got this transcript, was associated with 
Mr. Sacher in the Santos case ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. I do not. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, Mr. Lattimore, is it your testimony that the 
Santos transcript was handed up to Mr. Morgan at the Tydings com- 
mittee hearings by Mr. Fortas ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is my recollection. I am not sure whether 
it was handed to Mr. Morgan or directly to the chairman. 

Mr. Sourwine. As a matter of fact, did you not hand that tran- 
script up to the Tydings committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Maybe I did. I don't know. 

Mr. Sourwine. And did you not tell the Tydings committee what 
they would find on certain pages of that transcript ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I may have. 

Mr. Sourwine. If you did, were you telling them about those pages 
irom hearsay or had you examined those pages ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had not examined those pages. I was told by 
my counsel. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you tell the Tydings committee that you had 
been told by your counsel ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe I did. It could be checked by refer- 
ence to the transcript. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes ; we have the reference to the transcript. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to ask to read it at this time, but I 
request that it be marked, the paragraph beginning a little below 
the middle of the page 812 of the Tydings hearings and continuing 
through the paragraph that ends at the top of the next page, and be 
inserted in the record at this point. 

Senator Ferguson. It may be inserted. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 463," and is as 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 463 

State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation Hearings Before a 
Subcommittee of the Comimittee on Foreign Relations, United States 
Senate, Eighty-first Congress 

[Pt. 1, pp. 812-813] 

The history of this man's participation in questionable ventures did not be- 
gin — as it certainly did not end — with his party membership. Before he joined 
the party in 1935 he was a radical, left-wing agitator. He has been arrested 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2969 

21 times, tried and acquitted 21 times. I assume that he was not guilty, but he 
was most certainly remarkably active. 

If you are not yet convinced of this man's unsavory character, I suggest that 
you read his sworn testimony on cross-examination contained in the official tran- 
script of the deportation proceedings entitled "In the Matter of Desideriu 
Hammer, alias John Santo, Respondent in Deportation Proceedings, file No. 
A-6002664." 

I do not wish to discuss the matters contained in this transcript, but I hand 
a copy to the subcommittee. 

Senator Tydings. It will be put in the record as exhibit 83. 

Dr. Lattimoke. I suggest that the committee should not, in advance of examin- 
ing this transcript, make it part of the public record. 

Senator Tydings. It will be kept sealed and noted in the record as an exhibit 
but not spread in the testimony until the committee can look into it. 

Dr. Lattimore. Beginning at page 143 of the transcript, which is page 36 of 
the typewritten copy, Budenz admits that even before he joined the Communist 
Party he engaged in certain personal activities which, to say the least, are of- 
fensive to accepted standards of decent and conventional behavior. Beginning 
on page 170 of the transcript, which is page 50 of the typewritten copy, Budenz 
refuses to respond to a series of questions relating to his personal behavior on 
the grounds that his answers might incriminate him. These questions, gentle- 
men, relate to two different alleged relationships ; and they all concern Budenz' 
activities before he became a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. FoRTAS. May we see that, Senator ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, surely. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. On page 5 of your statement, Mr. Lattimore, you 
make the statement that Mr. Budenz weaseled and retreated. Did 
you intend by that to express your contempt of the witness who 
weasels and retreats ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I intended by that to characterize Budenz' manner 
as it appeared to me. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You were not intending to express any contempt 
for Mr. Budenz ? 

Mr, Lattimore. I was not intending to convey the impression that 
he was an Eagle Scout, if that is what you mean. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. At the bottom of page 5, you quote Mr. Budenz as 
saying, in the Tydings hearing, "I have never seen any vestige of 
his" referring to you, "Communist Party membership." 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. Why did you not quote the next sentence after that, 
in Mr. Budenz' testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I see the transcript on that ? 

Mr. Sourwine. The next sentence after that reads : 

What I have received is these official reports which are quite binding and were 
binding on me as a member of the Communist Party. 

Is that not correct ? If you cannot find it in your transcript, you 
will find it at page 527, the fourth paragraph from the end, of the 
transcript I just handed you, the printed transcript. I am sorry, 
the chairman has that now. 

Do you have it now ? It is on page 527, the fourth paragraph from 
the end. 

Mr. Lattimore. 527, which paragraph did you say ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Maybe I have the wrong page reference. It is 
possible. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Fortas, did you know Harry Sacher? 

Mr. Fortas. I may have met him some time. I know that I have 
not seen him within my present recollection. 



2970 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not he has been dis- 
barred as far as the Federal court of New York is concerned? 

Mr. FoRTAS. I have seen that in the press, Senator ; yes. The case 
may be on appeal. I don't know. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. But there had been an action concerning 
him in at least the lower court ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. Yes ; that is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know that he was sentenced for con- 
tempt of court in the so-called 11 Communist trial that was presided 
over by Judge Medina? 

Mr. FoRTAs. I read that in the press ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. And sentenced to 6 months? 

Mr. FoRTAS. I don't remember that. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not it has been con- 
firmed by the appellate court ? 

Mr. FoRTAs. I think that is right. I think it is before the Supreme 
Court now. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. That is on page 527, the fourth paragraph from 
the end. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I find that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Will you read that whole paragraph there ? That 
is Budenz's testimony ; is it not ? 

Mr. LA'rriMORE (reading) : 

The point is this : I would say of course the question of personal knowledge is 
a legal question in a certain way, but I would say, so far as meeting Mr. Latti- 
more, as seeing him in meetings, that I have never done so, that I have never 
seen any vestige of his Communist Party membership. What I have received 
is these official reports which are quite binding and were binding on me as a 
member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. That is all. The question I am asking, sir, is why, 
when you quoted the sentence "I have never seen any vestige of his 
Communist Party membership" and quoted it in the context of show- 
ing that Mr. Budenz was admitting, as you contend, that he had no 
basis for any assertion with regard to your Communist Party member- 
ship, why did you not go on and quote the next sentence in the same 
paragraph of Mr. Budenz's testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I have no objection whatever to the 
next sentence being included in the record. 

Senator Ferguson. That was not the question. The question was 
why you did not put it in, not whether you have an objection to it. 

Mr. Lattimore. Because I thought that the point that Budenz 
admitted that he had never seen any vestige of Communist Party 
membership on my part was the pertinent point I was trying to make. 
I had been trying to write a statement not longer than absolutely 
necessary. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think it was modified ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This other statement — there are other statements 
that appear at other points in the Ty dings transcript, and it is part of 
the hearsay part of Mr. Budenz's evidence. 

For instance, on page 1137 of the Tydings-typed transcript, Budenz 
says : 

Outside of what I was officially told by the Communist leaders, I do not know 
of Mr. Lattimore as a Communist. 

I did not quote that either. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2971 

Senator Ferguson". Do you not think that the statement you gave 
was modified by the next sentence ? 

Mr. Lati'imore. ISIodified by the next sentence ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; the one that was read. 

Mr. Lattumoee. They are two separate sentences. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Did you ever inveigh against anyone for quoting 
things out of context, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that this committee has introduced a 
great many quotations out of context ; yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you ever inveigh against anyone ? 

Senator Ferguson. You did not answer the question at all, did you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know that I would use the word "inveigh." 
I have pointed out that people have used statements out of context. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Have you ever expressed your disapproval of using 
statements out of context? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have expressed my disapproval of using state- 
ments out of context. I do not think that this particular point, if 
that is what you are referring to, is the point out of context. 

]Mr. Sourwine. That is what I was going to ask you, whether you 
think you have quoted this thing out of context ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I think I have given a fair connotation of Mr. 
Budenz's testimony over all. 

Mr. Sourwine. On paae 6 you referred to an article by a Chinese 
Communist published in I'acific Affairs, which you say was the single 
exception to a rule. 

Are you there referring to the article Agrarian Democracy in 
Northwest China, by Ma Ning, do you recall ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that is probably the reference. Inciden- 
tally, I don't mean — you use the word '"rule" there. I don't mean rule 
in the sense that the magazine had any rule against presenting the 
views of Chinese Communists. I mean, as it so happens, that is the 
only one we had that I have been able to find. 

Mr. Sourwine. At the top of page 7, sir, you say : 

Now, it is characteristic of tliis man and of this dark world of intrigue, that 
your counsel, Mr. Morris, carefully refrained in the hearings before you from 
asking Budenz whether he had read my writings. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine, Do you realize, sir, that the plain meaning of that 
language is a charge that something which Mr. Morris did is charac- 
teristic of Mr, Budenz ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Is that your interpretation of it? 

Mr. SouRAViNE. I am asking you if you realize that that is the 
plain meaning of the language. 

Mr. Lattimore. My interpretation of the meaning of the language 
is that Mr. Morris, with eveiy opportunity to straighten out the 
Budenz record, did not do so. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you deny that the plain meaning of that lan- 
guage is the statement that something Mr. Morris did is characteristic 
of Mr. Budenz? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am stating that it is characteristic of this man, 
in this dark world of intrigue. I mean, the whole way in which 
Budenz has been allowed to make his accusations, broadcast, with no 
checking or verifying of his credibility, no testing questions whatever. 



2972 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You are talking about something Mr. Morris did; 
are you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. I go on to 

Mr. SouKwiNE. No, not going on, sir. In this particular sentence 
you are talking about something Mr. Morris did. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, it is characteristic of this procedure, 

Mr, SouRwiisrE. You are talking about something Mr. Morris did; 
are you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That Mr. Morris carefully refrained in the hear- 
ings 

Mr, SouRwiNE, And you are stating that what Mr. Morris did in 
that regard is characteristic of Mr. Budenz; are you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. If you would like to interpret it that way. 

Mr. SoTiRWiNE. Do you deny that you intended it that way ? 

Mr, Lattimore. All right, if you want to put that word in my 
mouth, I will intend it that way, 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Please do not intend it that way for me, sir. I 
am asking you what you did intend. I think it is germane to this 
committee to know whether the plain import of wdiat you said is 
something which you intended to say. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr, Sourwine, the use of the words "this dark 
world of intrigue" is in itself a statement on my part that there are 
things here that I cannot fathom, that I think that the proceedings 
would have been much fairer and clearer if there had not been this 
mystery and this atmosphere of intrigue. Precisely what character- 
istics Mr. Morris and Mr. Budenz shared in this dark world of in- 
trigue is something that I don't know. If I had known, 1 would 
have said it. 

Senator Ferguson, What do you mean by "intrigue" here, as used? 

Mr. Lattimore. I mean this manner of presenting evidence when 
it had been clearly shown in the Tydings hearings that Budenz was 
unreliable and evasive, to present him all over again before this sub- 
committee without a single question to check his credibility. 

Now, I am not saying, Senator, that my view of Budenz is necessarily 
correct. I am not saying that the evidence in tile Tydings trans- 
script is all the evidence there would be. I am merely saying that 
I think that, in view of the nature of the accusations made by Budenz, 
some check should have been made before this committee. And did 
your committee ask your counsel if they had checked Budenz' cred- 
ibility? 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you have any knowledge, sir, of any checks that 
may have been made? 

Mr. Lattimore. All I can see is an absence of any check. 

Senatpr Ferguson. Did you know that Budenz had been used by the 
Justice Department on many occasions in court and had been vouched 
for as to credibility by the Justice Department of the United States? 

Mr. Lattimore. That was not brought up, Senator, in the Tydings 
hearings. 

Senator Ferguson. My questi6n was did you know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. There is something pertinent to this that I have on 
the record before. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you like to return to that later ? 

Mr. Fortas, Mrs. Lattimore is looking for it now. 

Mr. Sourwine. You say Mrs. Lattimore is looking it up now ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2973 

Mr. FoRTAs. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed. We will return to it later. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I ask this question, Mr. Lattimore ? With re- 
gard to this sentence we are discussing, the first sentence at the top 
of page 7 of your statement, now that we haf e had some discussion 
of it here and now that you have reread it, is there anything that that 
sentence appears to you to convey that you want to disavow here or in 
any way circumscrilDe or amend? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I considered that sentence carefully 
before I wrote it, and I will stay with it as it stands. 

Mr. SouR^VINE. I am sure you did. Now at the end of that first 
paragraph at the top of page 7 you say : 

Mr. Morris and Budenz sought to achieve just as good a general effect. 

By that statement do you mean that Mr. Morris and Mr. Budenz 
had a common purpose? 

JNIr. Lattlmore. I mean that the record as it stands certainly looks 
like that. 

Mr. SouRA\T:]srE. In your opinion, Mr. Morris and Mr. Budenz had a 
common purpose; is that correct? 

Mr. Lati'imore. In my opinion, Mr. Morris brought on Mr. Budenz 
and asked him questions which, as I stated just above, enabled Budenz 
to avoid the choice of plain, not fancy, perjuring on confessing that he 
had no basis for his charges. At this moment. Senator, I have found 
the point which I was looking for. 

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is in a statement made by me before the Tyd- 
ings committee. I don't have the page reference to the printed 
hearings : 

Third, I am informed that the Department — 

that is, the Department of Justice — 

does not vouch for the general character or credibility of its witnesses. At most, 
it impliedly represents that the use that they are qualified to testify on matters 
upon which they are questioned ; for example, in appropriate cases it calls as 
Government witnesses narcotic peddlers, gangsters, racketeers, confessed mur- 
derers, and thugs. « 

Senator Ferguson. Does it not vouch for the fact that when they 
call a witness such as they used Budenz for in these cases, they at least 
believe what he is going to say to be true and not perjury ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Presumably on the point for which they are call- 
ing him. But Budenz was not called by the Department of Justice 
to testify against me. 

Senator Ferguson. No ; I am not talking about you now. I tried 
to eliminate you as much as possible out of the case. 

But if they call him in one of these other cases, they vouch for the 
credibility of what he is going to say in that case ; do they not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Presumably. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. You may proceed. 

Mr. Sourwine. Thank you, sir. If we can get back to the question 
of your statement that Mr. Morris and Budenz sought to achieve just 
as good a general effect, did you intend by that to imply any prear- 
rangement between Mr. Morris and Mr. Budenz ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no knowledge how much they may have 
prearranged things between them. I wrote that sentence simply 

88348— 52— pt. 9 6 



2974 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

because it looked to me as if botli Morris and Budenz had skirted 
around difficulties known to both of them from the previous hearings 
before the Tydings committee. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. But to put it bluntly, were you not then, and are you 
not now, charging conspiracy between Mr. Budenz and Mr. Morris to 
achieve what you call just as good a general effect? 

Mr. Lattimore. My counsel tells me that he believes that that is a 
question of legal opinion on which I don't have to express myself. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Is tliere anything in that statement, that sentence 
that I read, which you now want to disavow or amend or circumscribe 
in any way? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not at all. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you say the innuendo is there, that you 
are charging Morris and Budenz in a conspiracy to bring about 
perjury? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I said above that this whole thing appears 
to me to be a dark world of intrigue. The point has just been brought 
up that the definition of conspiracy is a legal question. I don't know 
about conspiracy, collusion, anything of that kind. I have simply 
made the point that the record shows that both men skirted around 
points of difficulty well known to both of them. 

Senator Ferguson. Let us leave the word "conspiracy" out and use 
the word that they just combined to have perjury committed. 

Mr. Lattimore. To have what? 

Senator Ferguson, To have perjury committed in the proceedings. 
Is that not what you say ? 

If he had, Budenz would have had the choice of plain, not fancy, perjury or 
confessing that he had no basis for his charge. Instead, Mr. Morris and Budenz 
sought to achieve just as good a general effect. 

Mr. Lattimore. What I was pointing out was that the line of ques- 
tioning followed was one which permitted Budenz to evade the whole 
question of perjury. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Lattimore, you say Mr. Morris obligingly 
asked. Who was he obliging, in your opinion ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, Mr. Sourwine, in view of the fact that no 
questions were asked that would cause Budenz the slightest difficulty, 
in view of the fact that Budenz was enabled to go further and be even 
more outrageous in his accusations than he was before the Tydings 
committee, obliging — that is, obliging Mr. Budenz — is the only term 
1 can think of. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is what I wanted to find out, how you intended 
It. And when you say a little further on, "Budenz obligingly re- 
plied," who did you intent to say Mr. Budenz was obliging? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether Mr. Budenz was obliging 
Mr. Morris personally or obliging the committee. But he was appar- 
ently giving an answer that he thought would be well received. 

Mr. Sourwine. In the next paragraph jou refer to a conference 
with the editor of Collier's magazine. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether that conference was face to 
face or over the telephone ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My recollection of the discussion before the Tyd- 
ings committee is that it must have been face to face, and with a 
stenographer present. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2975 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you think the Tydings committee record shows 
that? 

Mr, Lattimore. That is my recollection. I would be glad to have 
it verified. 

Mr. SoTJR^viNE. We would be glad to have you verify it, sir, if you 
can find anything in the Tydings record that indicates that. 

Mr. FoRTAS. May the witness take a look at it ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. No. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I have found it here. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have before me, sir, the page of the printed record 
which confirms that. I wanted to question you about it. I will be 
glad to wait, if you finish. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think perhaps we could save time. We have had 
a 4- or 5-minute pause liere. If you would look at this page which I 
hand you, which is, I believe, the printed record of that transcript, it 
might save time. I simply want to ask you a question about it. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Do you want to skip this point ? 

Mr. Sourwine. It is a relatively immaterial point, sir. It is our 
worth holding up the proceedings over. I simply wanted to ask about 
the nature of this conversation. 

Was not this the case of the editor of Collier's, or one of the editors, 
or editorial board members of Collier's, talking with Mr. Budenz 
about an article he had written for Collier's and a draft of which 
was then in the possession of Collier's and in the possession of this 
editor ? 

Mr. Lattimore. So I gather from the transcript, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And was not the editor of Collier's asking Mr. 
Budenz about what he said in that article ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was he not saying "You say this here, now how 
about that? You do not say this here." Is that not correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the sort of conference it was. 

Mr. SouR^^^NE. He was not asking Mr. Budenz "Wliat do you, Mr. 
Budenz, say to me now about the question of whether anyone is or is 
not a Communist?" He was asking Mr. Budenz "Do you, in this 
article, say anything about Mr. Lattimore?" 

Mr. Lattimore. No, he was apparently — my name was brought in 
there, and the editor suggested this — that the way Budenz had put it 
made it look as though I had been a Communist agent, and Budenz 
backed off and said he was not stating that I acted as a Communist 
agent in any way. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is your interpretation of what took place; is 
that right? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is my answer to your question. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right. 

That is quite correct, Mr. Fortas, that is what I asked him for. 

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that this material in small type, which appears 
on page 512 of the State Department employee loyalty hearings, the 
Tydings hearings, may be inserted in the record of this committee at 
this point. That is what I asked Mr. Lattimore to read and what we 
were discussing. 

Senator O'CoNOR (presiding). It will be so inserted. 
(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 464" and is as 
follows:) 



2976 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 464 

State Department Employee Loyalty Investigation Heakings Befoke a 
Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations United States 
Senate, Eighty-first Congress 

[Pt. 1, p. 512] 

Question. You tell about Browder saying that the followers of Mao Tse Tung 
had to be presented in a new light. It's easy to see that this was an idea the 
Communists had to push. Don't show that they invented this idea, show that they 
fostered it. 

Answer. I'll do that. 

Question. You have done one thing here that I think is not good. By inference 
you implied that Joe Barnes and Lattimore are not Communists exactly but are 
fellow travelers. You say the Communists supposedly endorsed Roosevelt. 

Answer. I think probably what we ought to do is to leave out those names 
entirely. Perhaps we can rephrase it some way. I said it merely to show that 
they would add meat to what I was saying. 

Question. From our standpoint it seems that you were damning these people. 
This might put us in an embarrassing legalistic position. We have no particular 
reason to smear Lattimore. The same thing applies to that thing about Roosevelt 
on page 5. Why did you use the word "supposedly"? 

Answer. It was only because from time to time they were supporting Browder 
inferentially. They didn't come out and say they were for Roosevelt. Their 
arguments were for Roosevelt but their candidate was Browder. The Communist 
support of Roosevelt was not an actual support but only a way of winning the 
people over that were undecided. 

Question. On page 7 you say ''This idea of the 'upstanding Chinese Communists, 
the great agrarian reformers,' was peddled everywhere from that time on." You 
haven't given a single instance that it was peddled or that the idea was planted 
by the Communists. Give at least one instance, or more than one if possible. 

Answer. Lattimore and Barnes became champions of some of these ideas as 
time went on. 

Question. You're not saying that they acted as Communist agents in any way? 

Answer. No. 

Question. That ought to be quite clear. 

Answer. Oh, yes. 

Mr. FoRTAS. May I make the point that the hearings before the 
Tydings committee inchided the entire transcript of this conference 
between the editor of Collier's and Mr, Biidenz. I point that out 
to you. I do not know what this segment is to be introduced, but 
the committee may want to consider whether you want the entire 
transcript. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Is counsel suggesting that an effort is being made 
here to take something out of context ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. Of course not, Mr. Sourwine. I haven't seen what 
you are offering. Customarily, when evidence is offered in any pro- 
ceeding that I know of, it is shown to opposing counsel in advance. 
I am not asking you to do that. 

Mr. Sourwine. This is material with which it was assumed counsel 
was thoroughly familiar, having participated in the Tydings hearings. 

Mr. Fortas. I have never seen the printed transcript, and neither 
has Mr. Lattimore. I don't know what the pages are. 

Senator O'Conor. You may proceed to the next question. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, at the risk of cluttering this record, 
there are only a little over two pages of the entire transcript that is 
referred to, and they appear beginning on page 513. May those pages 
now be inserted at this point in the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. All right; they will be inserted. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2977 

Mr. SoTTRWiNE. And leaving the previous excerpt which was in- 
serted in the record at that point so that anyone may compare to see 
if they were taken out of context. 

Senator O'Conor. It will be so included. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 465" and is as 

follows:) 

Exhibit No. 465 

Statk Department Employee Loyalty Investigation Hearings Before a 
subcomillttee of the committee on foreign relations, united states 
Senate, Eighty-First Congress 

[Pt. 1, pp. 512-516] 

budenz article red myths, starring china 
(By Mr. Leonard Paris) 

Question. The main problem, IMr. Budenz, was that we felt that your thesis of 
this piece wasn't entirely proved. Let me tell you what I think of it : We need 
more documentation on some of the things. On the second page you say the 
whole idea of coalition government was concocted by Soviet Russia in order 
to defeat America in the Far East. I don't doubt that their support of coali- 
tion government was a contributing factor, but who first suggested coalition 
government? 

Answer. The Communists. 

Question. Before it had been publicly mentioned anywhere else? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. I think you ought to mention when and where and by whom 
coalition government came to public attention. 

Answer. It was the Communists who pushed it and made use of it. I will get 
the authority for this. 

Question. On page 3, the sentence reading: "These Moscow agents, pledged 
by their own declaration," etc., you quote "a sort of nonpartisan leaguer." 
Where does this come from? 

Answer. This comes from Browder. That is to say I don't know of anyone 
who used that phrase. It was used for an argument that the Communists in 
China are different. However, I will get authority for that statement. I used 
it because it was pushed by the Communist Party. 

Question. Here is an example of the sort of thing that needs more incidents 
and instances. On page 4 the sentence which reads "At every turn of history, 
the Chinese Communists, etc." I think it would be well for all readers if you 
gave some examples of that, other than just the pact between Russia and China. 
You're talking about the Soviet nonaggression pact. We need more examples to 
support that. 

Answer. I'll get you that. 

Question. You tell about Browder saying that the followers of Mao Tse-tung 
had to be presented in a new light. It's easy to see that this was an idea the 
Communists had to push. Don't show that they invented this idea, show that 
they fostered it. 

Answer. I'll do that. 

Question. You have done one thing here that I think is not good. By inference 
you implied that Joe Barnes and Lattimore are not Communists exactly, but are 
fellow travelers. You say that Communists supposedly endorsed Roosevelt? 

Answer. I think probably what we ought to do is to leave out those names 
entirely. Perhaps we can rephrase it some way. I said it merely to show that 
they would add meat to what I was saying. 

Question. From our standpoint it seems that you were damning these people. 
This might put us in an embarrassing legalistic position. We have no particular 
reason to smear Lattimore. The same thing applies to that thing about Roose- 
velt on page .5. Why did you use the word "supposedly"? 

Answer. It was only because from time to time they were supporting Browder 
inferentially. They didn't come out and say they were for Roosevelt. Their 
arguments were for Roosevelt but tlieir candidate was Browder. The Com- 
munist support of Roosevelt was not an actual support but only a way of winning 
the people over that were undecided. 



2978 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Question. On page 7 you say "This idea of the 'upstanding Chinese Com- 
munists, the great agrarian reformers,' was peddled everywhere from that time 
on." You haven't given a single instance that it was peddled or that the idea 
was planted by the Communists. Give at least one instance, or more than one 
if possible. 

Answer. Lattimore and Barnes became champions of some of these ideas as 
time went on. 

Question. You're not saying that they acted as Communist agents in any way? 

Answer. No. 

Question. That ought to be quite clear. 

Answer. Oh, yes. 

Question. You say that the entire history of coalition governments was that 
Russia took over eventually. We need concrete instances, and examples very 
much more effective. They must also be complete enough so that they can be 
quickly identified and so that the reader can see that they are true. 

Answer. It will be very brief. 

Question. On page 10, "On December 7 last, it was discovered in Washington 
that there had been a tragic lag in the delivery of promised war material and 
other goods to Nationalist China, etc." Isn't the reason for that simply because 
Congress didn't appi'opriate more than that? Isn't it true that more aid went 
to Greece and Turkey than China simply because more had been appropriated? 

Answer. I have to check on that. This was pointed to by the New York 
Times in an editorial. 

Question. On page 11 thei'e is a dubious slam on the unions. "A special se- 
cret order was sent out to the Communists, to be pushed in unions and in every 
occupation where sympathizers were engaged, etc." It sounds as though you 
can expect to find Communist sympathizers in every union. 

Answer. We can change that. It's a document that I'm referring to there. 
I will look it up. It may be the way it is phrased. The unions are the chief 
opponents of the Communists. Communists are always trying to work within 
the unions. In a number of unions they do have Communists as they do in all 
fields. 

Question. "Arrangements were made whereby the legs of book reviewers were 
to be pulled so that those works which gave a break to the Chinese Communists 
would receive favorable notices." etc. We need an instance of this. Make the 
article much more effective by getting an actual case. 

Answer. In previous articles my statements were specific ; then they were 
made very general. 

Question. Any documentation? 

Answer. No. I can't prove it legally. That's why I use a general phraseology. 

Question. Best thing to do is leave it out. 

Answer. The trouble is I did have a host of specific examples and then had 
to take them out. 

Question. On the Amerasia case, refresh most of our readers as to what actu- 
ally happened. Did the defendants get off without any difficulties? How did 
it work out? 

Answer. Jaffe was fined and one other defendant, Larson (I have to check 
up on this) got a small suspended sentence. Nobody went to jail. Mitchell 
was not given punishment of any kind. 

Question. Can you indicate how Communist pressure was exerted? 

Answer. I'll make an effort to check this. This is pretty well known. That's 
why I didn't go into it. 

Question. But people forget details. The actual outcome of the case should 
be stated and the definite part that the Communists played. 

Answer. Definitely. I should tell more of what these documents contain. 
The plans of Chiang Kai-shek's army and the economic plans of the Chinese 
Government were in tho.se papers. 

Question. On bottom of page 16, "In his address Mr. John Carter Vincent indi- 
cated Nationalist China as a place unsound to invest private or public capital." 
You're not trying to imply that this was a Communist idea, are you ? Hasn't it 
been pretty well demonstrated that Nationalist China was unsound? 

Answer. The State Department was supporting Nationalist China. 

Question. The point is, Mr. Vincent's quotes on Nationalist China may or may 
not have been the result of the Communist lie. 

Answer. I'll have to link it more closely. It was accepted in the Far East 
division. I'll bring you more information on this. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2979 

Question. If Mr. Carter's advice were taken, you claim there would be an awful 
fiasco. Isn't there any possibility that part of the trouble in China is the Chinese 
Government itself? 

Answer. Surely. 

Question. Never in any part of the article was it admitted that Chiang Kai- 
shek's government was weak and corrupt. You're trying to show the Commu- 
nist influence. 

Answer. Let me take hold of that. I'll present more examples of Communist 
activity and show how the activity played its part. 

Question. Vie shouldn't try to convince our readers that Chiang Kai-shek was 
all white and that Communist propaganda led to what happened over there. 

Answer. As a matter of self-defense, America was completely unaware of what 
was taking place in China. 

Question. You have to prove that General Carlson was a party liner — back 

it up. 

Answer. He was such a striking example. He was a Communist many years. 
I can be stronger. I can give you instances. I can show you who was associated 
with him on this committee. 

Question. On page 21: "It was out of all these pressures, Moscow-directed, 
that President Roosevelt was persuaded to amend our solemn pledge of China's 
integrity made at Cairo to the Yalta promise that Soviet Russia would get Outer 
Mongolia and even a chance at Manchuria, et cetera." Moscow-directed pres- 
sures were not solely responsible ; that is putting it a little too broadly. 

Answer. It shouldn't be solely. 

Question. "It is from such creation of confusion in the American mind that 
we have promised aid to China and not given it in the measure it was pledged." 
You were referring to the New York Times editorial, I presume. Show actual 
figures. 

Answer. I'm glad you raised this about Roosevelt. I can tell more in this 
piece. The reason I don't go more into the Communist activities is because 
I don't want to sound repetitious of some of the other articles. The methods used 
by the Communists have a somewhat similar tone. The tactics described sound 
like it happened before. 

Question. On these things, the more instances you can show to bear out what 
you say or what your thesis is, the better it will be. It has to be more than just 
implied or inferred. Make it as definite as you can possibly make it without get- 
ting into libel. 

Answer. There is a terrific .iob in writing this. I know certain connecting 
links which I dare not say. I try to bring them out, but they become somewhat 
broken, because I cannot give the link. I will make some of these definite changes 
that you suggest. I will enlarge the information on the Chiang phraseology. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. At the top of page 8, sir, and this is the last point I 
wish to inquire about before you go ahead with the reading of your 
statement, you say : 

This same Mr. Morris is the one who invited Budenz to testify that I received 
instructions as a member of a Communist cell. 

I would like to ask you how did the question that Mr. Morris asked 
at that point invite any particular testimony from Mr. Budenz? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, that second sentence was written 
after careful consideration, and after reading the part of the tran- 
script in which Mr. Morris was questioning Budenz. 

Incidentally, the smooth way in which Budenz was allowed to pre- 
sent his accusations forms rather a startling contrast with the ques- 
tioning of accused witnesses before this committee. 

The only conclusion I could come to from that reading was that the 
entire method of Mr. Morris' questioning constituted an open 
invitation. 

Mr. Sourwine. I see. You were not referring to the particular 
question that you have here cited in your testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am referring to the whole of the questioning. 



2980 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRA\^NE. All right. I have no more questions up to this point 
where the witness concluded reading his statement. 

Senator O'Conor. Will you proceed? Again, just by way of expe- 
diting the proceeding, it appears to me that there is a natural break 
at the end of page 14, before taking up the several points that the 
witness indicates were used in a certain matter. It occurs to me that, 
from this point on, until the conclusion of page 14, which may be a 
natural segment or just a segment, that you miglit want to proceed and 
read it entirely. ^ 

Mr. Lattimore. I am entirely with you. Senator. 

Senator O'Conor. All right, go ahead. You may proceed from the 
middle of page 8. 

Mr. Lattimore. As for the Institute of Pacific Relations, your chair- 
man has already publicly proclaimed that lie has prejudged it, and 
I do not suppose that anything I say will change his mind. In a 
printed interview, while the investigation is still in process, he has 
already stated, as his "curbstone opinion," that the institute "was taken 
over by Communist design and made a vehicle for attempted control 
and conditioning of American thinking and American policy with 
regard to the Far East." It was also used — he said — "for espionage 
purposes to collect and channel information of interest or value to 
the Russian Communists" (United States News and World Report, 
November 16, 1951 ) . It sounds almost as if the curbstone from which 
the distinguished Senator delivered this opinion had been imported 
from one of the countries in which accusation is accepted as conclusive 
of guilt. My own relations with the IPR were gone into quite thor- 
oughly before the Tydings subcommittee, the record of which your 
counsel, Mr. Morris, has so sedulously kept out of sight. I therefore 
ask permission to submit as an exhibit a copy of my statement of May 
2, 1950, to the Tydings committee, and I particularly call your atten- 
tion to the analysis, beginning page Dl, showing that my writings 
have not followed the Communist line, have conflicted with the Com- 
munist line, and have been bitterly attacked by Communists. 

May I offer that, Senator ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes ; that will be received and marked for ref- 
erence. 

Mr, Lattimore. Thanlc you. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 466," and is 
filed in the committee file for reference. ) 

Mr. Lattimore. The proceedings before this subcommittee have 
created so much confusion and mystification about the IPR that I 
want to repeat, in plain English, that I never had any administrative 
responsibility in the American IPR, or any supervision of its staff. 
I have been for some years a trustee, and for a short time after the 
war I was a member of the executive committee of the American IPR ; 
but as I do not live in New York, my attendance at meetings was 
infrequent. I also want to say clearly that in my own work as editor 
of Pacific Affairs from 1934 to 1941 I was not dominated or directed 
or influenced in any way by Communist or pro-Communist people or 
attitudes. Pacific Affairs was not an American publication. It was 
an international publication. I was not responsible to the American 
IPR, but to the international council. 

Articles appearing in Pacific Affairs were circulated in advance to 
readers in a number of countries. Articles dealing with current con- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2981 

troversies were always shown in advance to someone representing the 
other side of the controversy, in order to maintain a high standard 
of debate and discussion, while eliminating mere propaganda as far 
as was humanly possible. 

I call your attention to my analysis of Pacific Affairs during the 
years I edited it which appears on pages C-1 to C-5 of my statement 
of May 2, to the Tydings committee, which I have just handed to you, 
and from which I wish to quote a few paragraphs : 

May I remind you that throughout this period there was nothing reprehensible 
or even unusual about the occasional publication of significant left-wing views 
or the analysis of left-wing movements in far eastern countries" Such views 
and analyses appeared in all the leading journals of the United States and the 
whole "Western World. In those days, before Kohlberg, McCarthy, and Budenz 
undertook to revise the American tradition of free inquiry and free speech, no- 
body dreamed of accusing an editor or publisher of being a Russian spy because 
such views were printed. 

I have made a new tabulation for you of all material published in Pacific 
Affairs under my editorship. Of a total of 250 contributions, only 17 — written 
by 11 persons — could possibly be called, by anyone, left of center because of facts 
or opinions favorable to Russia, Chinese Communists, guerrillas, or leftist move- 
ments in Asia. Remember this was an international magazine ; 94 articles were 
definitely right of center, and 143 either dealt with nonpolitical and noneconomic 
subjects or presented purely neutral points of view. There was nothing even 
remotely like a "mobilization" of Communist or leftist writers. 

I would also like to point out that the same 11 people who contributed the 
17 articles I have mentioned as representing left-wing positions contributed, 
during the same years, a total of at least 204 articles to reputable non-Commu- 
nist periodicals including the Saturday Evening Post, Reader's Digest, Literary 
Digest, American Mercury, Fortune, and the Atlantic Monthly. 

And in the same period we published at least 94 contributions that were defi- 
nitely to the right of center, which means about seven times as much right-wing 
material as there was material presenting left-wing views or information. 
Among our right-wing or anti-Russian contributors were Sir Charles Bell, 
British authority on Tibet and Mongolia ; L. H. Hubbard, a Bank of England 
economist specializing on Russia : Prof. Robert J. Kerner of the University of 
California ; Nicholas Roosevelt ; Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter, who was against 
a tough policy toward Japan; Arnold J. Toynbee; F. W. Eggleston, later Aus- 
tralian Minister to China ; G. E. Hubbard, right-wing British authority on China ; 
William Henry Chamberlin, and a strong representation of Kuomintang writers. 

I expect that during the same period, hardly any serious and objective magazine 
devoted to analysis of political problems, could show a fairer or more repre- 
sentative sample of current thinking. 

By promoting the publication and discussion of important facts and 
opinions the IPR, in my opinion, was making and is still making a 
valuable contribution to our shockingly meager information about the 
Far East, To use political intimidation to curtail or eliminate the 
free market of facts and ideas to which the IPR has contributed would 
be a catastrophe to the best interests of this country. 

In a free countr}', the discussion of foreign policy cannot be monop- 
olized or patroled by the government. The people of a democracy, 
and the officials who handle foreign policy in the government need to 
be able to draw upon a wide field of academic and private research, 
done by people who are not subject to bureaucratic controls. It is* 
right that the Congress should interest itself closely in both the issues 
and the conduct of foreign policy, but it is not right that the Congress 
should make itself the censor of academic research and personal 
opinion. 

Beginning in 1938, and continuing for several years, the Institute of 
Pacific Relations carried out a special project, called The Inquiry, 
financed by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. Nothing about 



2982 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

The Inquiry was secret. The whole background of war and political 
and economic conflict in the Far East was covered, and so were ques- 
tions of future peace settlements. More than 30 books were published 
as an "inquiry series." These books went straight into public circula- 
tion. They could be bought and read by anybody, including Govern- 
ment officials. 

Another research enterprise was carried on in the same years by the 
Council on Foreign Relations in New York. This research was also 
financed by a special grant from a private foundation, and its results 
were submitted to the State Department. 

I did not contribute to the Institute of Pacific Relations inquiry. I 
did contribute to the Council on Foreign Relations researcli. I took 
part in more than one of the "study groups" and for a time was chair- 
man of one of them. I wrote memoranda and expressed opinions. 

If this subcommittee is interested in my views, its investigative staff 
is open to the charge of extraordinary incompetence for trying to 
investigate me through the Institute of Pacific Relations. They should 
have looked into my connections with the Council on Foreign Rela- 
tions. 

In fact, I think that several memoranda which the Council on For- 
eign Relations asked me to write in October and November, 1940, were 
forwarded by the Council to the State Department. The memoranda 
had no effect whatever, I'm sorry to say. In them I predicted that the 
Japanese would find it eas}^ to come to terms with the Russians and 
that Russia would not act jointly with America. Accordingly, I urged 
that we strengthen our position by increasing aid to China, and I 
warned that "there is grave danger that we shall get into a war with 
Japan, with Russia joyfully neutral and uncooperative." 

My warnings of a Russian- Japanese get-together were justified 
when they signed a neutrality pact in April 1941. It turned out that 
I was right in foreseeing that war between Russia and Germany was 
more likely than war between Russia and Japan, in expecting Japan 
to turn south, toward Singapore, and not north toward Russia, and, 
finally, in warning that this could only be prevented by simultaneously 
boosting military supplies to China and cracking down on economic 
supplies to Japan. But the record shows that between the time of 
these memoranda and Pearl Harbor, a year later, these views of mine 
had not the faintest effect on the conduct of American foreign policy. 
We continued to aid the Japanese war machine and to hope that Japan 
would be kept busy with Russia. 

In the good days of freedom v/hen I edited Pacific Affairs for the 
IPR, no one was being bullied for having an inquiring mind or inde- 
pendent opinions. Every magazine and scholar was eager to get facts 
and to publish or read diverse opinions on the issues of the time. In 
those days it is regrettably true that nobody — and I mean nobody — 
had a crystal ball so that he could see into the future with unerring 
success. The nature of Communist infiltration was not known. It 
never entered our heads to set up a private FBI or security screening 
to determine the exact political affiliation of IPR staff members or 
contributors to IPR publications. It didn't enter anybody else's head, 
either. The Saturday Evening Post, the Luce publications, and the 
Wall Street Journal didn't work that way, either. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2983 

As a matter of fact, we had the best protection against being man- 
ipulated or duped that a private organization could possibly have — 
complete openness of discussion of facts and ideas. 

Senator Ferguson. Could I ask a question there? Did I under- 
stand you to say back further that you had really nothing to do with 
the policy or the setting up of what you say now is protection ? And 
where did you get this information about the best protection ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did not say anything about setting up anything. 
I merely said that we did not set up, and that nobody knows 

Senator Ferguson. But you say back here further that you did 
not have anything to do with the policy of the IPR. 

Mr. Lattimore. 1 said I never had any administrative responsibil- 
ities in the American IPR, that is quite true. 

Senator Ferguson. Where did you get the information, then, about 
"We have the best protection." 

Mr. Lattimore. Because I participated in it. Senator; because I 
knew that as editor of Pacific Affairs my articles, the articles I pub- 
lished, were circulated all over the place before they were published, 
and the manuscripts of other articles and also books were circulated 
all ( iver the place, including some of them coming to me sometimes. 

Senator Ferguson. So that you did know what was going on, you 
werii being consulted about what w^as going on in the IPK,^ 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir, I was not being consulted about what was 
going on. I was receiving some of the material that was thus circu- 
lated. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know that any of these people that 
have refused to testify before this committee as to Communists, when 
they were writing the articles and books for the IPR, did you know 
those persons at the time these contributions were being made? 

Mr. Lattimore. I knew some of them. I knew of others. I did not 
know of any of them as Communists. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you make any inquiry or did you know of 
any inquiry about their communist leanings, or being Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. I just said, Senator, that it never entered our 
heads to set up a private FBI or security screenings as of those years 
of the 1930's. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you mean by that statement, as a matter 
of fact, "we had the best protection," do you mean in the light of not 
being of the opinion that there was penetration by Communists ? Not 
having that knowledge, is that right ? 

Mr. Laitimore. What we were concerned with at that time was the 
general question of propaganda or biased presentation of views, any 
propaganda, any bias. As a matter of fact, what most people were 
concerned about in those days was Japanese propaganda more than 
anything else. 

Senator Ferguson. Can we agree that the Communists are very 
clever in giving out their propaganda ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Certainly we can agree on that. I have already 
stated that in those days, I think, most people were not yet aware of 
the danger of Communist conspiracy or long-range operation. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Then do you not think that with the 
lack of knowledge, that it may have been possible for the Communists 
to penetrate IPR, and carry on their propaganda ? 



2984 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. All I am saying is that the output at that time did 
not impress me or other people to whom the material was circulated 
as Communist propaganda. 

Senator Ferguson. Going back now to this problem as to whether 
or not it is innocence rather than knowledge that they did penetrate 
IPR, do you think that we ought to disclose to the public, if it was 
a fact, that, innocently, as far as anybody that was honest about the 
thing in the IPR, allowed penetration to be had, not knowing that 
it was being had? Do you not think that if it was penetrated we 
should disclose that to the public ? 

Mr. Lattimore. There was a part of the beginning of your ques- 
tion that I did not get, Senator. I will ask to have it read back. 

Senator Ferguson. No; I will give it again. Suppose we assume 
for the next question that there was no permission or knowledge upon 
any of the managers of the IPR — I want to exclude Mr. Field — but 
that as far as you were concerned, as far as Carter was concerned, as 
far as Holland and the other people were concerned, that it was be- 
cause it never entered your head that anybody would try to penetrate, 
but that they did pentrate, should not that fact now lie brought out 
to the public so that in the future it would be very difficult for pene- 
ration to be had without knowledge? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no objection whatever to that information 
being brought out, Senator. In fact, I highly approve of it. What I 
disapprove of, in the way in which the evidence has been stacked 
before this committee, is the impression that, because certain people 
may have been Communists at one time, and I don't know whether 
they were Communists at that time or later, that certain people who 
may have been Communists at that time were in the IPR, that they 
also controlled the policy of the IPR and the output of the IPR. 

Now, there are two points there : First, there was no IPR policy to 
control ; second, any honest review of the output of the IPR will show 
that it did not, in fact, serve Communist interests. 

Senator Ferguson. But of course, now, that is your judgment and 
you are giving that as your judgment to this committee of seven mem- 
bei-s. hoping that they will adopt your judgment. But if they come to 
a different conclusion, are you going to accuse them of bad faith, and 
is not that what you are doing in this? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. I am saying that this committee has thus 
far admitted an overwhelming amount of accusations and allegations 
to state, imply, or insinuate that the IPR was an instrument of the 
Communists, that that evidence is not adequate, that the other side has 
not been shown, that the enormous output of the IPR of a perfectly 
normal and even conservative character has been disregarded, and that 
the result is a distorted picture. 

Senator Ferguson. They have also permitted this record to show 
today that you, purely on hearsay, have branded Louis Budenz as an 
immoral person, and other than a Communist, is that not true? 

Should we immediately censure you and strike from this record 
that statement ? Or should we let it stand ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The only thing you could do there. Senator, would 
be to refuse to permit me to quote an official document. 

Senator Ferguson. You have never seen the official document. 

Senator O'Conor. How do you know what was in the official docu- 
ment if you admit yourself you have never seen it or consulted it ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2985 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know what my counsel would say to this, 
but my feeling is that the relationship between counsel and client is 
of such a kind that I was entirely entitled to take his word for it. 

Senator Smith. Do you know Harrj^ Sacher ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Have you ever had any conversation or corre- 
spondence with him? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Have you ever had anybody go from you to him or 
from him to you and ask for any of this information ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Do you know who he is ? 

Mr. Lattimore. From the hearings, from the mention that has been 
made here. 

Senator Smith. You Imow from the press who he is, do you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't recall seeing his name in the press. 

Senator Smith. You do not recall reading about the trial of the 
Communists in New York City, with Judge Medina ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I read some of the stories of the trial about the 
Communists. I confess I didn't make any minute study. 

Senator O'Conor. You are at the top of page 14, at the end of the 
second paragraph. 

Mr. Lattimore. As a matter of fact we had the best protection 
against being manipulated or duped that a private organization could 
possibly have — complete openness of discussion of facts and ideas. 
All research data, and opinions about the data, were constantly being 
circulated to, and commented on and criticized by, people who were 
authorities on the subject and who had, among themselves, many dif- 
ferences of opinion. Under that system, a research organization 
simply cannot be slanted or controlled to promote communism or any 
other single and exclusive policy. 

If it was party strategy to infiltrate the IPR, I did not suspect it. 
Nor as a matter of fact, did Senator Ferguson, who was a member of 
and contributor to the IPR from 1936 to 1944 — years when I was active 
in it, or Ray Lyman Wilbur or Newton D. Baker or Joseph B. 
Chamberlain or Jerome B. Greene or Robert Gordon Sproul. 

Maybe a few Communists or pro-Communists did work for the IPR. 
1 suppose that a few worked for the United States Government, too, 
and for some of our leading papers and great corporations. It does 
not follow that this made them communistic, that is, the employer, 
or that their other employees or executives were infected with the virus. 
In the case of F. V. Field, I had no reason to consider him a Commu- 
nist during the period when he was secretary of the American IPR 
in the 1930's, although I have no doubt he became one during the 1940's. 
I have been shocked and surprised to learn recently that five other 
people connected in one way or another with the IPR have refused 
to say whether they were ever Communists. If they were Communists 
when I know, or knew of them, then I saw no evidence of it. And 
certainly an honest and complete review of the IPR will show that 
it was never controlled or dominated by Communists. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. You speak of five other people, sir. Do you know 
that in fact, up to this date, there have been 11 ? 



2986 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Field, Moore, Rosinger, Kathleen Barnes, William 
Mandel, Mildred Price, Len DeCaux, the two Keeneys, Deane, and 
Allen. 

Mr. Lattimore. Are those all connected with the IPR ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. Your knowledge is greater than mine. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, because of your reference to your shock and 
surprise to learn that certain people had refused to answer, I would 
like to ask this: Do you think that refusal to answer that question 
indicates that the person refusing is a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Lattimore. I thinl<: that that is the general presupposition at 
the present time. I am informed that people sometimes do refuse 
to answer that question out of principle. 

So far as I know, the five that I have mentioned here, nobody even 
mentioned that principle. Therefore, I must make the inference 
that they probably are or were once Communists. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, do you not know that the Con- 
stitution would not allow them to claim exemption from testifying 
only on principle, that they must invoke the fifth amendment which 
is the one that provides that he shall not testify against himself? 

Mr. Lattimore. I will accept your authoritative statement on that. 

Mr. Smith. Who are the five that you referred to here? That is, in 
this particular spot. 

Mr. Lattimore. Field, Harriet Moore, Kathleen Barnes, Len De- 
Caux, Rosinger, and Allen, besides Field. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you not know that by the time those persons 
you named had testified there were many more than five who had re- 
fused to answer that $64 question ? 

Mr. Laittimore. What relation did they have to the IPR or to me? 
I can only speak of people that I know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you not know all of these 11 people I named? 

Mr. Lattimore. Read them over. I think there are several I never 
knew. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Mr, Field ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I knew him. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Harriet Moore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Lawrence Rosinger ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Joseph Barnes? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know William Mandel ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. SouR"wiNE. Did you know Harriet Price ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Len DeCaux ? 

Mr, Latitmore. Len DeCaux, I think I have met him ; but I wouldn't 
recognize him if he walked into the room. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know the Keeneys ? 

Mr, Lattimore. I have met them casually ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Mr. Deane? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Deane? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2987 

Mr. SoTjRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe so. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you know James S. Allen ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. All right, that establishes who you know. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know that any of these witnesses re- 
fused to testify that they knew you on the grounds it might tend to 
incriminate them ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Here goes some hearsay evidence, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you if you ever heard of it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Somebody told me that James S. Allen so testified. 
But I didn't see the press report myself, and I heard about that after 
this statement was prepared. 

Senator Ferguson. How long ago was this statement prepared ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It has been in preparation for several months. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; but when was it finished ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It was finished, maybe, 6 or 8 hours before it was 
delivered to this committee. 

Senator Ferguson. Then why was not Allen's name used here to 
make it six ? You had known that Allen refused to testify. 

Mr. Lattimore. I was confining m.y remarks to people that I know. 
I can only be shocked and surprised about people I know. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know Allen ? 

Mr. Lattimfre. I corresponded with him, I never met him. At 
least, I don't believe I did. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you mean by "know" that you knew them 
personally ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Or had some contact with them ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Writing and corresponding is contact, is it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore." Yes ; that is right. Well, I have included him, 
haven't I ? 

Senator Ferguson. Have you? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The witness did name Mr. Allen. 

Mr. Lattimore. All right. I was confused here because I first 
mentioned five people besides Field. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You then testified that you did not know Mr. Allen. 

Mr, Lattimore. Not in the sense that I don't believe I ever met him. 
If you want to say that corresponding means knowing, that is all right, 
I will accept that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Just so the record shows how you mean when you 
say. 

Mr. Lattimore. In this case I am trying to oblige you by meaning 
what you say. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Lattimore, you say here on page 14, "I suppose 
that a few," meaning a few Communists, "worked for the United 
States Government, too, and for some of our leading papers and great 
corporations," 

Mr, Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you have any knowledge of any Communists who 
have worked for the United States Government? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I could probably provide you with some 
names, if I searched newspaper files. I can't recall offhand. I am 
not an expert on the subject. 



2988 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I am speaking of your own knowledge. Do you 
have, yourself, any personal knowledge of any Communists who have 
worked for the United States Government ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I have. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you have any personal knowledge of any Com- 
munists who have worked for any of our leading papers ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Leading papers ? No ; I don't think I have. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you have anj^ personal knowledge of any Com- 
munists who have worked for any of our great corporations ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't think I have. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. If we may go back to page 12, sir, where you say, 
"The investigative staff of this subcommittee is open to the charge of 
extraordinary incompetence for trying to investigate me through the 
Institute of Pacific Relations." I ask you, do you know that this 
subcommittee began this particular investigation because of its m- 
terest in the Institute of Pacific Relations ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that is in the record ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know that the subcommittee started out 
with a very substantial mass of documents obtained from the files 
of the IPR in a manner which you have here characterized as illegal ? 

Mr. LiiTTiMORE. It has been given a fair amount of publicity, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you blame the staff of the committee for the fact 
that after we got into those files we found your name on document 
after document ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, the point that I was making here, 
and this is my principal concern with your inquiry into the Institute 
of Pacific Relations, is that this committee or its staff' have tried to use 
the Institute of Pacific Relations as a stick to beat me with. And I 
was merely pointing out that if they wanted to beat me up they could 
do it better with the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Mr. Sourwine. Does your ego, sir_ compel you to the conclusion 
that this subcommittee is after you rather than investigating the In- 
stitute of Pacific Relations ? 

Mr, Lattimore. Not my ego ; my epidermis. 

Mr. Sourwine. You have come to the conclusion that the committee 
is after you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Do you think that any other conclusion would be 
possible to a reasonable person ? 

Mr. Sourwine. I am asking you what your conclusion is.. If no 
other conclusion is possible to a reasonable person, I assume you will 
say "Yes," that is your conclusion. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; that is my conclusion. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, that is all of the questions I have 
at that point. 

Senator O'Conor. Are there any other questions ? 

If not, then will you continue, Mr. Lattimore? It occurs to me 
that another natural break would be at the top of page 19, that that 
would be a statement that might be taken up at one time. 

Mr. Lattimore. Fine. The committee staff' has used against me 
letters and interoffice memoranda from the files of the IPR. I have 
two points that I want to make about the evidence selected from these 
files. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2989 

(1) Each and every item is, in the context of its time and subject, 
completely innocent and explicable, and certainly not evidence of 
subversive activity. 

(2) The method in which these letters and memoranda have been 
used is, to say the least, a startling departure from any possible stand- 
ard of fairness or objectivity. They have been presented to witnesses 
who did not have access to the full text, and to witnesses who, though 
they were neither the writers nor the recipients of this "evidence", have 
been asked to interpret what the original writer meant. 

As the outstanding example of the way in which my connections 
with the IPS have been exploited by this committee, I want to take up a 
letter that I wrote to Mr. E. C. Carter on July 10, 1938, because of the 
unnecessary and rather silly mystery wiiich has been built up concern- 
ing it. ]\Ir. Carter, as well as a number of people who had nothing to 
do with the letter, have been asked to comment on it before this subcom- 
mittee, whereas I, the author of this letter, was questioned by this sub- 
committee for between 5 and 6 hours, in executive session, 2 weeks be- 
fore the public questioning of Mr. Carter, and was not asked a single 
question about it. If the subcommittee's intention had been to get an 
explanation of this letter, I could easily have given it to them. Instead, 
Mr. Carter was asked to explain from memory, after 13 years and with- 
out being allowed to see the full text, much less the full correspondence 
of which it was a part, what he thought I might have meant by a num- 
ber of expressions that I used. 

I therefore wish to make a rather extended comm.ent. 

An obvious effort has been made to try to convey the impression that 
I was giving Carter instructions, but the fact is that I did not take the 
initiative in writing this letter. Mr. Carter wrote to me, and to a 
number of other people, asking for comments on the Inquiry, a special 
research job to be undertaken by the IPK, to which I have referred. 
In his letter, Mr. Carter had said : 

Asiaticus has been employed to prepare a major monograph on certain deter- 
mining factors in the Chinese situation. Dr. Chen Han-seng will undertake two 
important sections of the Chinese study. An invitation has just been extended 
to Mr. Ch'ao-ting Chi to undertake two other sections. 

The Inquiry was really none of my business. As I have said I did 
not contribute to it, and had no administrative or supervisory responsi- 
bility for it. Mr. Carter, however, frequently invited comments or 
advice on particular IPR enterprises from people who had no connec- 
tion with them. 

A great deal has been made of the fact that Asiaticus, Chen Han- 
seng, and Ch'ao-ting Chi, the three men mentioned by Mr. Carter, have, 
many years later, been identified before this subcommittee as Commun- 
ists. Asiaticus was reported killed during the war. The two Chinese 
are reported to be now working for the Chinese Communist Govern- 
ment, but that is true of a great many Chinese who were loj^al to Chiang 
in earlier years. As it turned out, eventually none of these three men 
completed a contribution to the Inquiry series. 

My reply to Mr. Carter was that he was cagey to invite these three 
men to contribute. I thought that Mr. Carter was cagey in exactly 
the same sense that a newspaper columnist once described Senator 
Homer Ferguson as "benign and cagey." I think that Mr. Carter 
can be very aptly described as a benign and cagey man. In his work 
for the IPR he has always tried to increase international knowledge 

88.348— 52— pt. 9 7 



2990 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

and understanding, which is benign, and he has always tried to do so 
by mixing together in the free-market place of discussion as many 
different points of view as possible, which is equally commendable in 
my opinion. 

I also stated to Carter that the three men suggested would bring 
out "absolutely essential radical issues." Gentleman, you mi^st re- 
member the year 1938, and the context. I used the word "radical," 
of course, in its dictionary sense of "fundamental." What I had in 
mind — as Carter and anybody else would have known, were the 
radical problems of reform in China and China's relations with for- 
eign powers. In the course of Japanese aggression, there had been 
conspicuous examples of the Chinese of invaded territory refusing 
to support the war-lords who oppressed them. They passively ac- 
cepted the Japanese, because they had nothing to fight for. This had 
led to widespread demands for reforms in order to give the Chinese 
people something to fight for, including drastic economic reforms, 
especially in rural taxes and in the relations between landlords and 
sharecropper tenants. 

If China won the war these radical issues w'ould continue to exist 
and perhaps might be even more pressing. As we found in every 
country that was a victim of aggression in the Second World War, 
soldiers who have just defeated a foreign aggressor and people who 
have suffered from invasion are likely to demand a better standard 
of life. 

Eadical international issues were also looming on the horizon. 
Chiang Kai-shek had already been pressing for revision of China's 
international treaties. With China victorious, the Chinese people 
were certainly going to refuse to go back to the old status under which 
China was in effect a tributary country to the United States and 
Britain as well as to Japan and other countries. China was certainly 
going to demand a place among the great powers of the world. Once 
we got into the war, the United States recognized this, and over 
Churchill's objections we voted for China as one of the Big Five of 
the United Nations. 

In my letter to Mr. Carter I went on to say that — 

for the general purposes of tlie inquiry it seems to me that the good scoring 
position, for the IPR, differs with different countries. 

By "different countries" I meant, of course, the different National 
Councils of the IPR. 

For China — 

I wrote — 

my hunch is that it will pay to keep behind the official Chinese Communist 
position, far enough not to be covered by the same label but enough ahead 
of the active Chinese liberals to be noticeable. 

The situation as of 1938 was as follows : The Communists were taking, 
for them, a very moderate position. They were urging rent reduction 
and other economic reforms. The Chinese liberals were urging a 
wider political representation and an end of the Kuomintang one- 
party system, but were hesitating at economic reforms. I thought 
economic reforms were essential (and I remind you that it is now 
a generally accepted thing that such reforms, especially rural re- 
forms, are an imperative necessity all over Asia if disastrous Com- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2991 

inunist revolutions are to be forestalled) ; and in tins respect my 
position was in advance of the Chinese liberals. However, as I was 
not a Communist, Carter was not a Communist, and the IPR was 
not Communist, I did not want the IPR to play into the hands of 
the Communists by advocating the same economic reforms and allow- 
ing them to claim the credit. The Communists were already claim- 
ing that they and they alone were bold enough to demand economic 
reforms. I thought that approval, among foreign friends of China, 
of the idea of fundamental reforms, especially rural reforms, might 
encourage the Chinese liberals to speak up and to break the Com- 
munist monopoly of claiming to be progressive. 

I also wrote : "For the U. S. S. R., back their international policy 
in general" —  — 

Senator Smith. The U. S. S. R., is that the Soviet Russia that you 
are talking about ? 

Mr. Lati-iimore. Soviet Russia, yes [reading] : 

But without using their slogans and, above all, without giving them or anybody 
else an impression of subservience. 

This period, 1938, was the period of maximum Soviet cooperation 
with the United States, Britain, France, and the League of Nations. 
It was the stated policy of tlie U. S. S. R. — almost universally credited 
at the time as in good faith — to support international unity and to 
resist Japanese and also German and Italian aggression. Even by 
1938, however, I had learned through my experience in dealing with 
Russians as editor of Pacific Affairs, that it is a standard Soviet 
maneuver to try to make every act of agreement between equals look 
as if it were acceptance of Soviet leadership. I did not believe in 
any such subservience to the Russians, and I did not want the Institute 
to make the mistake of allowing the Russians to claim, or anybody 
else to believe, that agreement as to international unity and against 
aggression was an act of subservience to Russian policy. 

Senator Ferguson. You have one statement here in relation to the 
letter that indicated to me, and I do not know whether it is right, 
that Mr. Carter was prohibited from reading this letter, the total of 
the letter, the whole letter. 

INIr. Lattimore. Where are we now ? 

JNIr. SouRWiNE. On page 15, near the bottom, the sixth line from 
the bottom. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the impression I got from the transcript, 
Senator. If I am wrong, I should be glad to be corrected. 

Senator Ferguson. Without being allowed to read the full text. 
I show 5^ou the transcript on page 3G, where the letter was identified 
and Senator Eastland asked, "Wlio is the letter from or to?" 

Mr. MoRKis. It is from Mv. Owen Lattimore to Mr. Carter, dated July 10, 1938. 

The Chairman. I think the witness should do it. 

Senator Watkins. He probably can identify it better than anyone. 

Mr. Carter. I would like to read it later, but identify it as having been 
written by Lattimore to me, that I received it. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. ]MoRRis. Mr. Carter, I would like to read two paragraphs from this and 
fisk your comment on them. This is Mr. Lattimore writing to you. 

Would that indicate that he was not allowed to read it? That is. 
when he had it, identified it. and said that he would like to read it 
later, and then it goes in in its entirety 3 pages later as exhibit 4? 



2992 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. Later means after the questioning, does it not ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes; it becomes a part of the official record; 
it is put into the record. 

Mr. Lattimore. But he had not read it in full before he was 
questioned. 

Senator Ferguson. But that is not what you said. You indicate 
that this committee kept him from reading it and would only allow 
him to see two paragi-aphs. Is that a fair statement ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I will accept your correction on that, Senator. All 
I can say is that only part of my time is available, and with very 
limited means I have tried to make this statement as accurate as pos- 
sible, and I think it compares favorably on the subject of accuracy 
with the investigation that has been carried out by this committee with 
many, many thousands of dollars of the people's tax-paying money. 

Senator Ferguson. Of course, you can keep repeating that, and 
the committee is going to allow you to keep repeating that, as to what 
you think about the committee. 

I know of nobody on the committee that is going to interfere with 
you if you put that into the record with every answer. 

Senator Smith. Let me ask, Mr. Chairman, this question. 

Mr. Lattimore, did you know that this very letter that you are talk- 
ing about, the cagey letter, that that was in Mr. Carter's barn up in 
Massachusetts on his farm in Massachusetts ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I presume that is where it came from. 

Senator Smith. I say, Did you know that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't say that from oiffhand. I presume so, 
from the point that it was in the record. 

Senator Smith. Did you know that those records of the IPR were 
taken out of New York City and taken up to Mr. Carter's farm and 
put in his barn? 

Mr. Lattimore. So I understand j yes. 

Senator Smith. Did you know at that time they were taken up 
there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Smith. You never heard about that until the public press 
announced it? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire briefly as to another 
point? On page 15 of your statement, Mr. Lattimore, in the 

Mr. Lattimore. Before you go on, Mr. Sourwine, may I point out 
that my reference about being allowed covers more than the question 
of the full text referred to by Senator Ferguson. I refer also to 
"much less the full correspondence of which it was a part." 

I believe it is true, is it not. Senator Ferguson, that officers and 
members of the institute have not been allowed to have access to the 
files while they were in your custody ? 

Senator Ferguson. I know of no such rule. 

Mr. Morris. No, that is wrong, Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Carter has 
been invited down to look at that particular correspondence you are 
talking about, by written letter. 

Mr. Lattimore. Has he been allowed full access to all of the files 
that you hold ? 

Mr. Morris. I answered that particular question, Mr. Lattimore. 
Mr. Carter asked about that one, and he was invited to come down 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2993 

and look at it. He has never availed himself of the invitation. That 
is in writing. 

Senator Smith. I think Mr. Lattimore's question pointed to the 
fact as to whether or not we would be willing to turn over the files to 
Mr. Carter and his cohorts, and we have not been willing to turn 
them back to them because we had enough trouble getting them in the 
first instance. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Might I inquire, Mr. Chairman ? 

On page 15 of your statement, Mr. Lattimore, in the third para- 
graph from the top, near the end of that paragraph, you use the word 
"evidence." You say: 

They have been presented to witnesses who did not have access to the full 
text, and to witnesses who, though they were neither the writers nor the recipi- 
ents of this "evidence" — 

you put the word '"evidence" in quotes. When you were reading the 
statement you read the quotation marks. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What is your purpose in putting that word "evi- 
dence" in quotes? 

Mr. Lattimore. To emphasize the highly selective nature of the 
material on which witnesses have been questioned before this com- 
mittee. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you use the word "evidence" in the legal sense ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether that is the legal sense or 
not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does the word "evidence" have a connotation other 
than the legal sense in your mind? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know, Mr. Sourwine. I am not a lawyer. 

Mr. Sourwine. You had no purpose in using those quotation marks 
to indicate your feeling that the documents in question were not evi- 
dence, or did you? 

Mr. Lattimore. My intention was to indicate that they were a mere 
fragment of the evidence. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Over on page 16, you refer to a newspaper colum- 
nist who described Senator Ferguson as benign and cagey. Will you 
tell the committee who that was and when the column appeared ? 

Mr. Lattimore. John O'Donnell, in his column "Capital Stuff," in 
the — what is the name of this ? 

Senator Ferguson. By "this" you mean a newspaper ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. It is the Daily something or other. It is 
dated Washington, D. C, August 9, and was published in this par- 
ticular paper, the name of which is not on the top, on August 10, 
1948. 

Mr. Sourwine. And how did you come across this particular col- 
umn ? How did you find it or who gave it to you ? 

Mv. Lattimore. I don't remember. I have an enormous stack of 
clippings at home. I clip as much as I can referring to the Far East, 
and it is impossible for me to identify where individual clips came 
from. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is that a clipping from your files ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is a clipping from my files ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. It has been in your files since approximately the 
date on which it appeared? 



2994 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore, Presumably. 

Ml'. SotTEwiNE. Not specifically called to your attention in connec- 
tion with this hearing ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; it was not called to my attention. It was 
found by me by accident when pouring through a stack of stuff. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. On page 17, sir, of your statement, at the end of the 
first paragraph on that page, you refer to reforms in the relations 
between landlords and sharecropper tenants. 

]Mr. Lattimore. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. Would you say you were referring to agrarian 
reforms ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say I was referring to agrarian reforms ; 
yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And on page 18 you use the term "rural reforms" 
twice. Were you there referring to agrarian reforms ? 

l\Ir. Lattimore. I think that is a little bit of a quibble, isn't it, Mr. 
Sourwine? "Rural reform" and "agrarian reform" are virtually 
interchangeable terms. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is what I thought. x\.nd the answer is "Yes," 
is it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Surely. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is all of the questions I have. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, in your reference here to Mr. Carter 
not being allowed to see the full text of the letter, you have known all 
of the time, have you not, that until those records were seized in Mr. 
Carter's barn, that the possession of all of those records, including 
that letter, were in him ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Presumably, yes. 

Senator Smith. Now, did you know anything about the difficuUy 
and the delay that the committee experienced in getting some other 
records that turned out to be in Mr. Field's basement and unbeknown 
to the committee, and some that were not in the barn ? Did you know 
about those records? 

Mr. Lattimore. I saw some reference to it in the press. 

Senator Smith. Did you know anything about those records being 
put in Mr. Field's basement at the time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not a thing. 

Senator Smith. You had severed your connection with IPR ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had no connection — no, I was connected with the 
IPR, but I was not consulted on the disposal of back files, dead files. 

Senator Smith. So you disclaim any knowledge or responsibility 
for the records that were taken out of the IPR office and put in Mr. 
Field's basement in New York City? 

]Mr. Lattimore. I have no responsibility for it whatever. 

Senator Smith. Did you have anything whatever to do with the 
suggestion that these records of the IPR be taken from New York 
and transported to Mr. Carter's barn in Massachusetts? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had nothing to do with it. 

Senator Smith. Were you connected with the IPR at that time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was probably at that time — I would have to 
know the exact year, but I was very likely a trustee at that time. 

Senator Smith. As a trustee, you had full access to the records of 
the IPR, did you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Presumably, if I wanted them. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2995 

Senator Smith. And you availed yourself of that right at any 
time that you wished to examine IPR records? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think I ever availed myself of it. 

Senator Smith. You do not think you did? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Smith. Did you ever go to Mr. Carter's farm ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have been to Mr. Carter's farm, yes. 

Senator Smith. When did you go to Mr. Carter's farm? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't remember. It must have been years ago, 
the last time. 

Senator Smith. You know the barn in which these papers were 
placed ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I know the big barn on his place. It is probably 
the same one. 

Senator Smith. Did you ever go in that barn? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I have been there. 

Senator Smith. Did you ever go to the barn while any of these 
papers were in there? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no idea whether they were there or not. 

Senator Smith. Did you examine any of the files of the IPR in Mr. 
Carter's barn? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I didn't. 

Senator Smith. Did you ask for any of those papers to be brought 
from his bam for you to examine, either in his house or elsewhere? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Smith. So you never saw any of these records after they 
were taken to Mr. Carter's barn ? 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge, I never saw any of 
them. 

Senator O'Conor. All right, Mr. Lattimore, would you proceed. It 
would appear that a natural break would occur at page 24, so will you 
continue until that point? It would move things along. 

Senator Smith. Before we leave that, on page 18, where you describe 
what your hunch was, that you wanted to keep behind the official 
Chinese Communist position far enough not to be covered by the same 
label, you meant by that that you did not want this group to be known 
as associates of the Soviet Communists? 

Mr. LvTTiMORE. No; I meant that I didn't think that independent 
investigation should be conducted in the way that would enable any- 
body to say that any outside influence was directed. 

Senator" Smith. And then you cautioned "far enough not to be cov- 
ered by the same label." 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Smith. Did you think it would be detrimental to the organ- 
ization to have the Soviet label placed on its activities at that time? 

]Mr. Lattimore. Senator, it is very difficult for me to say in 1952 
exactly what I had in mind in 1938, in writing an obviously hasty and 
informal letter. 

Senator Smith. I can quite appreciate that. 

Mr. Lattimore. I can say that the best of my recollection at that 
attitude on questions in China — this was after the all-out Japanese 
attack on China had begun — my feeling at that time was that the more 
liberal representatives of the Chinese Kuomintang and other Chinese 



2996 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

who were not members of any party had a great opportunity at that 
time to carry on reforms along with the war, that would put the whole 
question of the modernization and postwar, wartime, and postwar 
development, of China on a footing of progress in a democratic direc- 
tion, and not allow these very simple and necessary reforms in China 
to be captured by the Communists or have the Communists claim that 
they dominated the whole business. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, I asked you what I thought was a 
very simple question in its form, and I think the answer would be 
simple. 

I asked you whether or not at that time, when you were referring 
to this same label, you regarded that it would be detrimental to this 
group to have the Communist label placed on them? 

Mr. Lattimore. Again; with all of the reservations that are neces- 
sary in trying to think up exactly what I meant in 1938, 14 years ago, 
I would say that my feeling was probably quite as much about the 
nature of the problem in China as it was about the nature of the prob- 
lem lying before the IPR. 

Senator Smith. I was not asking about the problem. I was asking 
you the one simple question : Did you at that time regard the Soviet 
label as detrimental? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should have regarded any approach to a monopoly 
to the labels of progress, reform, democracy, and so forth, by the Com- 
munists in China was highly detrimental. 

Senator Smith. I was asking about the Soviet label which you 
apparently are referring to here. You cautioned them to keep far 
enough not to be covered by the same label. But enough ahead of the 
active Chinese liberals to be noticeable. 

Now did you not mean by that that you did not want the Soviet 
label to be put on in the first instance, and yet you wanted them far 
enough ahead of the Chinese liberals so that it would be noticeable 
that you were not going along with the Chinese liberals? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I made it fairly clear that what I wanted 
to do was to spur on and encourage, if possible, the leadership of neces- 
sary reforms in China by the non- Communist Chinese. And again, 
speaking after 14 years, my supposition would be that what I was 
referring to was not to let the Communists put their label on reforms, 
and not a question of just the general public thinking that this is 
Communist. 

Senator Smith. Further down on page 18, you also wrote : 

for the U. S. S. R.— 

and you mean by that Soviet Russia ? 
Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 
Senator Smith (continuing) : 

Back their international policy in general, but without using their slogans and, 
above all, without giving them or anybody else an impression of subservience. 

In other words, you were suggesting that they follow the interna- 
tional policy of the Soviets, were you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. I was speaking then in the context of the fact 
that this was the most cooperative and internationalist period of 
Soviet foreign policy, when I think most people accepted the idea that 
the Soviet line at that time, which was the indivisibility of peace and 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2997 

SO on, was in good faith. And I thought, and so did many people in 
this country and in Europe, that this was a good kind of policy to 
follow. 

But I certainly did not want — I would not do it myself, and I would 
not want any organization with which I was connected — to encourage 
the Russians to think that we had no minds of our own and were 
letting them make up our minds. 

Senator Smith. Why were you counseling Mr. Carter to back their 
international policy in general? 

JMr. Lattimore. The policy at that time was a policy of resistance 
to aggression, both in Europe and in Asia. And if that had been at 
the time the over-all policy of Britain or of France, I would have 
said back their policy. 

Senator Smith. I said back their international policy, Russia's 
policy, in general. 

Mr. Latti]more. That policy at that time, as of the late 1930's, was, 
in my opinion, a very good policy of united international resistance to 
aggression. I approved it when the Russians followed that policy 
just as I disapprove of it, of the Russians, now when they are guilty 
of aggression. 

Senator Smith. That was not their international policy in general, 
was it? 

Mr. Lattimore. In 1938 ; yes. 

Senator Smith. Were they not still pursuing the Communist pol- 
icy then ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In 1938 they were pursuing a policy of maximum 
cooperation with the then League of Nations, with Britain and, 
France, and so on. 

Senator Smith. Yet their general international policy was Commu- 
nist, was it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, you are going into questions of what 
people knew or thought about Soviet Russia in the i930's from the 
point of view of what we know and think ahSit Russia in the 1950's. 
I do not claim that in the 1930's I knew as much about the character 
of Russian or Communist policy as I think I know now. 

I have this feeling of the possibility of cooperation with Russia 
is not one that is peculiar to me. It lasted well after the 1930's. As 
late as 1942, General MacArthur said "The hopes of civilization rest 
on the worthy shoulders of the courageous Russian Army." 

In 1943, the New York Times 

Senator Smith. He did not say anything about the political policy 
of Russia, did he? He is talking about the army. He is talking 
about the fighting qualities of the army, is he not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should have said that in 1942 a major part of the 
Russian policy was expressed in the actions of its army. But I may 
be mistaken. 

In 1943, the New York Times, in an editorial, wrote: "We can do 
business with Stalin, and that business will help our political rela- 
tions with the Russians. A tenth of the human beings of the world 
are on the way to higher living standards in Russia." 

In 1946, in' the Catholic Quarterly, the Reverend George H. Dunne 
wrote : "If Europe moves all the way to communism, it will not be be- 
cause of Russian intervention but because of the obstructionist tactics 
of die-hard reactionaries." 



2998 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

In 1942, tlie Chicago Tribune wrote- 



Senator Smith. jSone of those people wrote such letters as you did 
here to Mr. Carter ; did they ? I am asking what you said, what you 
meant, not what the New York Times said or what anyone else said. 

Mr.- Lattimore, Senator, I am merely trying to make a little bit 
plainer the fact that I think is fairly plan : That I showed at that time 
an optimistic view of the possibility of cooperating with Russia and 
with a number of other nations against the kind of aggression that the 
Germans, Italians, and Japanese were putting on. 

It seems to me a little bit — I don't know quite what the word is, 
but perhaps a little bit inconsistent — to demand that I prove that 
everybody who felt the same way that I did also wrote to the same 
people that I wrote to. 

Senator Smith. I was asking you about your language. But if that 
is your answer, that is all right. I was asking you about your specific 
language which was quoted in that statement. 

Senator Ferguson. You indicated that back in the late 1930's and 
the early 1940's you did not have knowledge of the Communist in- 
filtration; is that not correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Would not this letter that Senator Smith has 
just been asking you about, that part, indicate that you did have some 
knowledge of the operations of Communist infiltration and Com- 
munist tactics ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, Senator ; that is a little bit far-fetched. 

Senator Ferguson. You say it would not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had had experience with the Russian representa- 
tives in the IPR, that they were a highly combative bunch, and that 
any time there was agreement or even approach to agreement with 
the Russians they claimed it was because other people had agreed with 
them and not because they had agreed with other people. 

The difference between that and political infiltration seems to me to 
be fairly obvious. * 

Senator Ferguson. You were considered as a student of inter- 
national law, of international affairs ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. In those years I was not considered a 
student of either. I have never, in fact, been a student of international 
law, and so far as I was a student of international affairs, my primary 
qualifications, in 1938, were based on my specialized work in the 
Mongol border regions of China. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you did not look into the question of 
strategy and the tactics of communism ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir ; at that time I didn't. 

Senator Ferguson. I show you a report here headed "Under Trojan 
horse tactics," what was printed as of 1935 about their tactics. If you 
did not know about that, how do you account for no one in the IPR, 
which was interested in international law and international politics, 
and problems in the Far East? 

Mr. Laitimore. I can't answer for other people in the IPR, Senator 
Ferguson. All I can say is that as of 1938 I did not regard myself, and 
was not regarded by anybody else, as an expert on any kind of 
communism. 

Senator Ferguson. I ask the research director of the committee to 
read that into the record at this place. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 2999 

Senator O'Conor. All right. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Senator, you will identify it ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. It is part of the transcript, as I nnder- 
stand it, the identification. 

Senator O'Conor. Suppose when reading it, you give the identifi- 
cation first. 

Mr. Mandel. This is a quotation from the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities report dated 1939. On page 27 the annual report 
reads as follows : 

In 1935, the Communists changed their tactics, their strategy and tactics, to 
wliut is now Ivnown as the Trojan horse tactics. Georgi Dimitrov in an address to 
the Seventh Congress of the Communist International held in Moscow, in August 
1935, said: "Comrades, you remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy? 
Troy was inaccessible to the armies attacking her, thanks to her impregnable 
walls, and the attacking army, after suffering many sacrifices, was unable to 
achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan horse, it managed to 
penetrate to the very heart of the enemy's camp. We revolutionary workers, it 
appears to me, should not be shy about using the same tactics." 

Printed from the Workers Libi-ary Publishers, New York City, a Communist 
publishing house, in reporting the full text of the Dimitrov address to the Com- 
munist International, July 25 to August 21, 1935. 

]Mr. Lattimore. I don't see what earthly relevance that has to what 
we are talking about. But I do think it is a pity tiiat Georgi Dimitrov 
didn't go into the question of whether wooden liorses didn't have 
wooden horse feathers. 

Senator Ferguson. That is your answer to no question. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is a comment. 

Senator O'Conor. As I have stated before, it would appear to be a 
connected statement from pages 19 to 24. If we proceed to read that 
uninterruptedly it would be more expeditious. All right, Mr. 
Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. The personal damage that has been done to me by 
the way in which this subcommittee has allowed malicious testimony to 
be stacked against me is probably beyond repair. But much more 
important is the damage that has been done to my country, the country 
of which I am only one private citizen, and the damage that has been 
done to the conduct of the foreign policy of our country. 

When China fell to the Chinese Communists, it was a grave set-back 
to the interests of this country, an unmitigated tragedy. This particu- 
lar outcome of the Second World War, the establislmient of a Com- 
munist government in China, was the result of complex causes. Some 
of these causes go far back in history. Some were the results of the 
changing balance of power produced by the Second World War. Some 
were due to the decay and internal corruption of the previous govern- 
ment of China. 

I have been, to the best of my ability, a careful student of the causes, 
course, and outcome of this great contemporary catastrophe. I be- 
lieve that in part it could be foreseen and was in fact foreseen by 
various individuals. I believe that, with the advantage of hindsight, 
!'. number of mistakes can be pointed out in the handling of the Amer- 
ican policy tliat attempted, at various stages, to forestall, to avoid, and 
finally to mitigate this catastrophe. 

It would be useful to analvze these mistakes of the past, as a ffuide 
to the future, but it certainly serves no patriotic purpose to chstort 
mistakes, or, more accurately, lack of success, as if they were signs of 



3000 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

guilt. The attribution of personal guilt for the mere purpose of pro- 
viding political scapegoats is not civilized or democratic behavior, 
hoAvever widespread it may be among primitive groups of men. 

But what 1 emphatically do not believe is that the catastrophe was 
brought about by the treachery or incompetence of those entrusted with 
our foreign policy. By and large, I believe that our China policy was 
handled not only loyally but as competently as could have been reason- 
ably expected, considering the many forces and circumstances in the 
situation that were beyond our control. 

I believe that it is as important to the welfare and safety of this 
coutnry to have a strong State Department and an able Foreign Serv- 
ice in our di])lomacy as it is to have effective military forces. I believe 
that the usefulness of our Foreign Service personnel has already been 
jeopardized by the work of this committee — both directly by attacks on 
irreplaceable personnel, and indirectly by impairing the coufidence of 
the Nation and our foreign allies in our State Department and by in- 
stituting a reign of terror among our Foreign Service personnel. 

First, as to the direct injury: It is a fact that almost all the few 
men Avith outstanding experience and knowledge of China have al- 
ready' eitiier been eliminated from the De]:>artment of State or are 
W'orkino- in other parts of the world, in the hope of keeping them out 
of the line of fire of a bitterly partisan political fight and out of range 
of tlie venom of men who are determined to find evil where none 
exists. 

Senator O'Conoe. The parties will kindly desist from any display 
of approval or disapproval Avhile the hearing is in progress, please. 

Mr. Lattimore. The three outstanding 

Senator O'Conor. Would it be desirable to take a recess at this 
point? 

]Mr. Lattimore. If I may. 

Senator O'Conor. We will take a recess for 5 minutes. 

(A brief recess was here taken.) 

Senator O'Conor. The hearing will please be in order. 

All right, Mr. Witness, will you proceed ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The three outstanding examples of men sacrificed 
to the hj'steria that has been wdiipped up in this countt.'y by the China 
lobby — a hysteria to which this committee, I am sorry to say, is con- 
tributing — are John Stewart Service, O. Edmund Clubb, and John 
Carter Vincent. Any one of these men would have been capable of 
holding, in our far-eastern policy, the kind of respected position that 
is held with regard to Russian policy by George Kennan ; but where 
are they now ? 

John Stewart Service, an exceptionally able career diplomat, after 
being cleared six times by the State Department Loyalty Security 
Board— and I believe I am in error there ; I believe it is more than 
six times — and after a careful statement that he was not guilty of dis- 
loyalty, has been summarily dismissed for "reasonable doubt" of dis- 
loyalty, under a new ruling. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that not a Presidential order, and is that not 
the v'ording of it? 

ISIr. Lattimore. As to "reasonable doubt" ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. I have not made it specific in my statement 
here, but the thought in my mind in referring to this is that whoever 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3001 

is responsible for this ruling, it constitutes a new ruling on past cases 
which has been given retroactive force and conveys to some members 
of the public, of whom I am one, a flavor of cruel and unusual punish- 
ment, the pursuit of a man until you have completely failed to get him 
under existing rules, and then saying, "All right, we will get him; 
we will make a new rule." 

Senator Fi<:rguson. Well, the President made the rule; did he not? 
It is his Presidential order. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not informed in detail on that, Senator. I 
should consider it a part of the general disastrous and pusillaijimous 
retreat of the State Department under the bludgeoning to which it has 
been subjected. I regret it, but I consider it a fact. 

Senator FERGUS0?>r. You charge the State Department with cruel 
and unusual punishment ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir ; I don't. 

Senator Ferguson". Well, is that not just exactly what you said? 

Mr. Lattimore. Is the Loyalty Review Board a part of the State 
Department? 

Senator Ferguson. No ; it is part of the executive branch. And you 
said it was because the State Department had been cowed or blud- 
geoned. 

Mr. Latitmore. I am not an expert, Senator, on the structure of the 
Federal Government. Perhaps I should have informed myself more 
carefully on this, particularly as I am vitally concerned about it. 

Senator Ferguson. You are trying to give this committee some ad- 
vice and opinion, and I would have thought you would have sought 
accurate information before you would swear to it, that we would 
rely upon it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have certainly tried to give this committee my 
opinion. If I had thought that this committee was susceptible to 
advice, perhaps I might have thought out my terminology more care- 
fully in that context. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, of course, you know what we want 
is not just opinion advice. We want facts. Now, I will ask you — 
and I think perhaps I can clear this up and I can understand how you 
may not be familiar — you say here "cleared six times by the State 
Department Loyalty Security Board." 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Smith. That is a board, as I understand, composed of State 
Department employee officers or employees. Now, I did not under- 
stand you referred to the President's Loyalty Board, which is the over- 
all Board, which is a review board. "Which are you referring to in this 
language ? 

Mr. Laitimore. I believe I am correct in saying that his summary 
dismissal by the State Department was mandatory immediately upon 
the rendering of the verdict of the Loyalty Review Board. 

Senator Smith. That is the over-all Board. So that what you say 
here was with reference to the State Department Board itself? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I am referring to the general 

Senator Smith. The over-all Loyalty Board, the President's Loyal- 
ty Review Board ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, it was responsible. 

Senator Smith. You understand that each department has a loyalty 
board, and then there is the President's Loyalt}^ Review Board which 



3002 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

hears appeals from tliese different departments, which among others 
is the State Department? I am just trying to get it clear which you 
had reference to. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you read the opinion by the Review Board, 
Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I read it at the time. 

Senator Smith. And did you find any evidence in that opinion that 
they were of the opinion that Mr. Service had or had not given some 
secret papers or documents to Amerasia ? 

Mr, Lattimore. I remember that their conclusion, which I have 
quoted here, was that he was not guilty of disloyalty. 

Senator Smith. Well, do you remember the other, that they had 
found as a matter of fact that he had delivered secret documents to 
any member of the Amerasia ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My recollec tion of that differs from yours, Senator. 

Senator Smith. I am asking you, and I am not making a statement. 

Mr. Lattimore. My recollection is that he had in his possession 
only declassified papers. 

Senator Smith. Did they not mention that he had given papers 
to Amerasia ? 

Mr. Lattimore. If your information is better than mine, I will 
accept it. Wliat I remember is the conclusion of the Loyalty Re- 
view Board that he was not disloyal. 

Senator Ferguson. Did they find that under the rule that the Pres- 
ident had laid down, that there was reasonable doubt of his disloyaltj^, 
and therefore he should be discharged ? 

Mr. Lattimore. They found, they very carefully stated, that he 
was not disloyal, and then they said that they felt entitled to consider 
him as — what is it 

Senator Smith. A bad security risk ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. Something about reasonable doubt of loyalty. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you are placing 

Mr. Lattimore. It seems to me a shotgun sort of rule, under which 
to try to run a government. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, then, your criticism is of the Presidential 
order, on that statement ; is that right ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In this connection, my criticism is of the entire 
policy of the executive branch, which I think has been brought about 
by a disastrous attempt to appease the China lobby and others attack- 
ing the foreign policy of this country. 

Senator O'Conor. All right, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. O. Edmund Clubb, a political observer and re- 
porter of outstanding conscientiousness and ability, with a unique 
experience combining China, central Asia, and Russia, was publicly 
suspended for 7 months, without pay and on the flimsiest of charges, 
while his loyalty was being investigated. After finally being vindi- 
cated and reinstated, he has resigned. He has taken to heart the now 
obvious lesson that the State Department is not a safe place for a man 
who has been cleared. 

Senator Forguson. Mr. Lattimore, did you know what the charges 
against Mr. Clubb were? 

]Mr. Lattimore. As far as they appeared in the press, I had a gen- 
eral knowledge of them, and I considered them extremely flimsy and 
I have so stated here. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3003 

Senator Ferguson. Could you repeat any of them ? 

Mr. Lattimoke. One was about going to the New Masses, visiting 
the New Masses ; and another one was about knowing the late Agnes 
Smedley. 

Senator Ferguson. Any others ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall offhand. 

Senator Ferguson. And you describe them as "the flimsiest of 
charges ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I consider those to be extremely flimsy charges for 
questioning the loyalty of a State Department man who, as a servant 
of the State Department endeavoring to quahfy himself by knowledge 
of factors important in foreign policy, should be able to consider it a 
duty to know, converse with, and have discussions with people of the 
most varied kind. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever have any discussion or talk with 
Mr. Service after his discharge ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Since his discharge, I haven't seen him, I don't 
tliink. 

Senator Ferguson. While matters were pending? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have seen him occasionally ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk over what the charges were ? 

Mr. Lattuniore. In a general way ; yes. I did not ask for his con- 
fidence, and my purpose in seeing him was to show that as a friend 
of his, I was not going to be scared off. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, I assume that you were not a witness for 
Mr. Service? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I was not a witness. 

Senator Ferguson. Or Mr. Clubb or Mr. Vincent ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Or Mr. Clubb or Mr. Vincent. 

John Carter Vincent, a man of ambassadorial seniority, has for 
several years been removed from work in the area of his unique spe- 
cialty — the Far East — and has been assigned to North Africa, be- 
cause, in the prevailing temper of the times, the administration dares 
not return him to work where he belongs and is needed. 

Senator Jenner. Mr. Lattimore, you have named three men here 
whom you think have been unfairly treated ; that is, John Stewart 
Service, O. Edmund Clubb, and John Carter Vincent. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I modify one word there, Senator? I think 
"scandalously" would be better than ''unfairly." 

Senator Jenner. I will accept your word. 

Now, going back to another period in history in the Far East, would 
you be kind enough to tell this committee what you thought of the 
way Joseph Grew was treated ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I know very little, indeed, about the resignation 
of Mr. Grew, and I couldn't tell you olfhand by whom he was replaced. 

Senator Jenner. Do you know anything about Stanley Hornbeck, 
what happened to him, and why ? 

Mr. Lattisiore. I have known Stanley Hornbeck for many years. 

Senator Jenner. Would you tell the conrmittee about his career in 
the Far East, and what happened to it, and why ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I understood that he served the last assignment as 
Ambassador to the Netherlands, and then retired in the ordinary 
course. 

Senator Jenner. And Mr. Dooman ? 



3004 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I know very slightly. 

Senator Jenner. Could you tell us anything about his career? 
Mr. Lattimore. I don't know anything about his career. 
Senator Jenner. Or Patrick Hurley, or his experience in the Far 

East? 

Mr. Lattimore. I know what I have read in the press. 
Senator Jenner. Lieutenant General Wedemeyer ? 
Mr. Lattimore. I know what I have heard in the press. 
Senator Jenner. Adolph Berle ? _ 
Mr. Lattimore. Practically nothing. 

Senator Jenner. Is it not a fact that these men, too, were either 
removed from ofSce or assigned to diplomatic posts or military posts 
of no importance because they did not go along with the policy of the 
State Department in the Far East ? Is that not true ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know about the details of reassignment or 
retirement of any of these men, Senator. 

Senator Jenner. Well, you have made a reference here about 
"attacks on irreplaceable personnel." Now, these men that I have 
named were all rej^laced, and do you know who replaced them ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, can you inform nie whether any of the 
men that you have just mentioned were ever pilloried for months on 
end in the press as Communists, or Communist stooges, or agents of 

the policy of a foreign 

Senator Jenner. No. As a matter of fact, they were just the oppo- 
site. They were anti- Communist, and then walked the plank be- 
cause they were, and that is what I am trying to get at. You are 
supposed to be an expert on this situation, and I assumed that you 
knew about all of these facts. 

Now, would you tell me what you mean by "irreplaceable personnel," 
"both directly by attacks on irreplaceable personnel"? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that personnel like Vincent, Service, and 
Clubb are very difficult to replace. 

Senator Jenner. Would you say that Joseph Grew and Stanley 
Hornbeck and Adolph Berle and Patrick Hurley and Lt. Gen. Albert 
Wedemeyer would be hard to replace ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know enough about the details of their 
qualifications to have an opinion. Senator. 

Senator Jenner. Well, I think another thing should be brought 
out here, Mr. Chairman, this question of reasonable doubt, this new 
rule that the witness says he does not care for. 

Reasonable doubt; "has been summarily dismissed for 'reason- 
able doubt' of disloyalty, under a new ruling." 

Are you. trying to tell this committee that if there is a reasonable 
doubt about a man being loyal to this country, that he should remain 
in the office of public trust and handling secret papers, and so forth ? 
If there is a reasonable doubt about it, do you believe he should be 
retained in that kind of a position ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I believe that the question of loyalty in 
our Government service is of paramount importance. 
Senator Jenner. I noticed you stated that. 

Mr. Lattimore. It is of such importance that I think it should be 
handled strictly on grounds of proof or disproof; that vague words 
like "reasonable doubt," which may mean one thing to one man and 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3005 

something else to somebody else, are not the words of a ruling under 
which a high morale can be maintained in the Department. 

May I read, Senator, something of what I mean here, and it is an 
editorial from the American Foreign Service Journal of August 1951. 
This generally represents the point of view of the Foreign Service 
men in the Department of State. I quote : 

Another direct cost of this baiting is the toll it takes among members of the 
coming generation, who have talents and capabilities to contribute in the future 
formulation of a wise foreign policy for our country, but who are frightened 
away by the sort of hatchet work which seems on the way to becoming accepted 
as commonplace. In 1949, there were 1,128 candidates who took the foreign 
service examination ; and in 1950, candidates numbered 807. This year — 

that is, 1951— 

despite extra solicitation, only 760. The draft, competitive job opportunities 
in a booming economy, and administrative problems of enlarging the service 
were partly responsible. Nevertheless, this change, which was made the subject 
of methodical inquiry, clearly demonstrated that regardless of interest in or 
qualification for the field of foreign affairs, young people simply do not see any 
valid reason why they they should put their persons, careers, and reputations in 
potential jeopardy by joining the State Department. 

Mr. SouKWiNE. Do you know who wrote that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have "no idea. 

Mr. SoLTRwiNE. Do you know John K. Emerson is one of the editors 
of the publication from which you have just read ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't know that. 

Mi\ SouRwiNE. Do you think that he might have written that 
article ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no idea. 

Senator Ferguson. Could I inquire whether it is a State Depart- 
ment magazine? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know what its connection with the State 
Department is. 

Senator Ferguson. Could I see it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe it is generally considered the fraternity 
journal of the Foreign Service of the United States. 

Senator Ferguson. You do not know at what expense it is being 
published ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't. 

Senator Ferguson. Or at whose expense? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Jenner. I come back to this same question, and I do not 
know whether the witness answered it or not : You deplore these men 
being attacked and you call them irreplaceable men, and I am going 
to ask you if a man was anti-Communist, such as Joseph Grew, Stan- 
ley Hornbeck, Mr. Dooman, Patrick Hurley, Lieutenant General 
Wedemeyer, you would also abhor replacing those irreplaceable men, 
too, would you not, because they were anti-Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I have no idea of the grounds upon which 
any of those men resigned or were replaced. 

Senator Jenner. You are not acquainted with these men and their 
careers and their position on the Far East and you are a far-eastern 
expert ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Some of them I have met very slightly, and you 
have mentioned several who are concerned primarily with Japan, 
which is not my field of specialization, and the assertion that they 

88348— 52— pt. 9—^8 



3006 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

■were fired because they were anti-Communists is your assertion, Sena- 
tor, and I never knew that before. 

Senator Jenner. All right. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, it is a fact that at the time Mr. 
Grew and at least some of these other men were fired, we did not have 
the same situation in the Far East with respect to the Communists 
being in dominant control that we have today ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I presume you are right. This was some years ago, 
wasn't it? 

Senator Smith. Yes. So that since these men who were known as 
anti-Communists were relieved of their duties and their positions com- 
munism has made great advances in the Far East ? 

Senator Jenner. That is why they were removed. 

Senator Smith. I am just asking for the facts. 

Mr. Lattimore. Is your argument. Senator, a post hoc, ergo propter 
hoc? 

Senator Smith. I believe you said you did not want to indulge 
in legal or technical language, so I am asking you in plain language 
if, after these men were removed, it is not a fact that there have been 
great advances by communism in the Far East? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. Of course, the advances of communism since 
the death of Julius Caesar have been even greater. 

Senator Smith. And that is the relation that j^ou think, or the 
attitude that you think you ought to have in discussing a current 
matter ? 

Senator Ferguson. Could we have an answer, Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I confess. Senator, I see no connection between the 
points you are making. 

Senator Smith. But the fact remains the same, that we did have a 
great many millions of friends who were anti-Communist in the Far 
East, but sometime after these men, as Senator Jenner refeiTed to, 
were released, then some kind of influence got in there by which today 
we do not have the same number of friends and that section of the 
world has gone Communist ; and you say that there is no connection, 
in your opinion ? 

Mr. Lattimore. A large part of the Far East has gone Communist. 
I don't know exactly how to take your expression that we had many 
millions of friends there. A question would arise there of how far 
they were actually friends, and how far they might have become 
friends or stronger friends under a different policy, and the question 
of whether they were merely sitting on the sidelines and waiting for 
things to happen, and so forth. 

Senator Smith. There was a change in our policy in the Far East, 
was there not, after Mr. Grew and these others who have been men- 
tioned were relieved of their duties ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not sure that I could point to any change in 
our policy. Senator, that could be accurately coordinated with the 
service of these particular men. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know Mr. Davies when he was in the 
Far East, John K. Davies? 

Mr. Lattimore. John P. Davies, and I knew him, not very well, 
but I knew him. 

Senator Ferguson. You have not used his name here. Is there any 
reason ? You have named three, but you did not name Mr. Davies. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3007 

Mr. Lattimore. I named these three particularly because I know 
them better, but I would include Mr. Davies among those who have 
been sent to hide out in non-far eastern countries by the State De- 
partment, presumably hoping they will be there safe from snipers. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Munson, a 
former CIA agent? 

Mr. Lait^imore. Xo, I didn't. 

Senator Ferguson. And you do not know what the testimony might 
be in the hearing here about Mr. Davies ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I saw some reference to it in the newspapers, but 
that part of the transcript of this committee's proceedings had not 
become available when this was written. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you read it in the newspapers? 

Mr. Lattimore. I read it in the newspapers. 

Senator Ferguson. And after reading that, would you say that you 
would still include him as one of these persons ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I also read a statement • 

Senator Ferguson. Answer my question. 

Mr. Lattimore. Excuse me; I am answering it. Senator. I also 
read a statement in the newspapers from Mr. Davies, something to 
the effect that the whole matter had been taken up previously and 
cleared in the hearings, or something of that sort. 

Senator Ferguson. And then you placed your reliance on his state- 
ment, and not on what the CIA man had testified to under oath ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am in no position to place my reliance on either 
statement. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. But you are including him now as one of those 
that you think have been unjustly discharged ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The accusations had not been made when Mr. 
Davies was sent to Germany, or when I wrote this statement. 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you as of today. 

Mr. Lattimore. As of today, I have no opinion. 

Senator Jenner. Referring to your statement here : 

But much more important is the damage that has been done to my country, 
the country of which I am only one private citizen, and the damage that has 
been done to the conduct of the foreign policy of our country. 

Now, I will ask you, could you possibly conjure a set of facts where 
our foreign policy could have been more mishandled, from Yalta down 
to the present time, in the Far East? You are a student of this, sir, 
and it is a fact that at Yalta we gave Manchuria to Russia and the 
northern half of Korea, and the Sakhalin and Kurile Islands; and 
it is the fact that we sent General Marshall to China with the specific 
mission to force Chiang Kai-shek to take the Coimnunists into his 
government and into his army and to have a united-front government ; 
and it is the fact that when AVorld War II ended, there was only about 
175 million Communists. And as a result of Yalta, and confirmed 
at Potsdam, and the Marshall mission, and the replacing of these 
loyal Americans who were anti-Communists in the Far East with men 
who were following, I will say, at least the pro-Communist line, could 
you think of any more damage that your country has suffered than 
that? [ 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I am afraid that I can agree with hardly 
a word that you have said. 



3008 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Jenner. You think our policy in the Far East has been 
successful ? 

Mr. Latttmore. I think that our policy, or I think that our interests 
in the Far East have suffered extremely serious setbacks, and I do not 
believe that those setbacks were a consequence of our policy. 

Senator Jenner. That was our policy, was it not : Yalta, the Mar- 
shall mission, replacing these men who were fighting the Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, you have made a chracterization of Yalta 
and of General Marshall's mission with which, I am sorry, but I don't 
agree. 

Senator Jenner. I think that that is the whole crux of it. That 
has been our policy ; and if it has been successful, you think it has 
been successful. Certainly I do not think it has been successful. 

Mr. Lattimore. I should like to read you the words. Senator, of 
somebody who has expressed this problem better than I 

Senator Jenner. I do not care to hear someone else's words. I 
want your words on it, and you stated that the policy has been suc- 
cessful. 

Senator O'Conor. I think we can settle this very well. 

Senator Jenner. He has answered my question, and I do not care 
for a dissertation on the speech 

Senator O'Conor. If Mr. Lattimore wishes to adopt the language 
used by someone else, it is perfectly permissible for him to read it. 

Senator Jenner. He said he thought it had been a successful policy. 

Senator O'Conor. I thought he wanted to elaborate on it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I want the reporter to read back and see if I said 
anywhere that we had a successful policy. 

Senator Smith. Did you say that, or not ? 

]Mr. Lattimore. Certainly not. 

Senator O'Conor. I did understand that you wished to elaborate 
somewhat. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is from Mr. George F. Keenan, our newly 
appointed and confirmed Ambassador to Russia, in his recent book, 
American Democracy — 1900-50 : 

It is similarly incorrect to portray the Yalta Agreement as a terrible betrayal 
of Nationalist China. The agreement was that we should recommend certain 
things to the Chinese Government. The leaders of that Government were not 
averse to these things at the time. They had asked us long before Yalta to 
help them to arrange their affairs with the Soviet Government. They later 
expressed themselves as well satisfied with what we had done. And in the 
subsequent negotiations, which they themselves conducted independently with 
the Russians, and which actually constituted the controlling arrangement for 
the future of Manchuria, they went in some respects further in the way of 
concessions to the Soviet Union than anything that had been agreed upon at 
Yalta and recommended to them by us. They did this despite the fact that 
they were warned by us that in doing so they were acting on their own responsi- 
bility and not at our recommendation. 

I should like to add a point, and this I quote from the Reporter 
magazine, the issue of February 19, 1952 : 

"In the treaty"— 

and this is the treaty between the Chinese and Russia direct — 

"the Chinese Nationalists, who seemed eager to coiirt Soviet freindship" — 

and this is the Chinese Nationalists who were eager to court Soviet 
friendship — 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3009 

"made concession which went beyond the provisions of the Yalta Agreement, 
and were prevented from going even further only by the persuasion of Averell 
Harriman, who was then United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Am- 
bassador Pat Hurley reported that Chiang Kai-shek was generally satisfied 
with the treaty, and thanked me" — 

that is, thanked General Hurley — 

"for the basis that I had helped him to lay for reapproachment with the Soviets." 
Madam Chiang, then in the United States, called on President Truman to 
compliment him on the result of the conversations between the Nationalists and 
the Soviet representatives, and thank him for the United States help in bring- 
ing them about. 

Life magazine as of that time, which seems to have changed its mind, 
hailed the treaty as "as great a victory for common sense as the defeat of Japan 
was for armed might" and indicated that it was "a vindication of American 
policy in Asia for almost 50 years." 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know who wrote that, Mr. Lattimore? 
Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

It forecast a warm brotherly collaboration between Chiang and Mao Tze-tung. 

Frome Life magazine : "Peace, lively but genuine peace," they cried, 
"is therefore the outlook." 

Senator Jenner. Do you know who wrote that ? 

Mr. Lati^imore. No, I don't. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you adopting it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am adopting it as far as it is an accurate quota- 
tion of the people who are quoted, the 

Senator Ferguson. Are you adopting it as being the correct view ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am adopting it insofar as it may quote correctly 
from the people from whom it quotes. 

Senator Ferguson. That is not answering my question at all. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is as far as I can answer it. 

Senator Ferguson. You can answer my question. 

Mr. Fortas. I think if you will clarify what you mean by "adop- 
tion" 

Senator Ferguson. Are you adopting it as your testimony, or are 
you only quoting somebody else ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am quoting from original sources which have 
been cited in a secondarj^ source, which I have not yet had time to 
verify or check. If the quotations are accurate, I am willing to 
present it as my testimony that they are accurate. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, I am not asking you that. That was not 
my question at all. Do you agree with what is said in the articles 
or the matter that you have just read ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I agree that that was said. 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask you that. 

Mr. Lattimore. At the time it was said. 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask you that, whether you agreed it 
was said. I asked you whether you agreed with it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't agree, or automatically agree, on the cor- 
rectness in 1952 of things that were said in 1949. 

Senator Ferguson. Why did you put it in the record ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Because the Senator here had made a statement 
implying that everything that had been done in American foreign 
policy in those years was the work of American traitors. 



3010 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. He did not indicate and ask you to bring out 
evidence of what somebodj' else said, did he ? He was asking for your 
opinion. 

Mr. Lattimore. My impression is, Senator, that he was making a 
rhetorical statement, at the end of which he asked for my agreement, 
yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes; your agreement, and not someone else's 
agreement. 

Mr. Lattimore. I told him I couldn't agree, and then I produced 
this evidence from the period as an indication of why I couldn't agree. 

Senator Jenner. Could we get the record straight? It started like 
this : I was reading from the statement of Professor Lattimore — 

But much more important is the damage that has been done to my country, 
the country of which I am only one private citizen, and the damage that has been 
done to the conduct of the foreign policy of our country. 

And I asked the witness if he could think of any greater damage that 
could be brought about as a result of our policy, and that is how the 
question started. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is where we disagree, you see. I don't think 
it was brought about by our policy. 

Senator Jenner. That is all I want. That was an answer to my 
question. 

Mr. Lattimore. You are entitled to your opinion. 

Senator Jenner. You are quoting people, and you do not know who 
they are, and you referred to a treaty in this quotation that you just 
read, and that was the treaty between China and Russia? 

JVIr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jenner. When was that treaty entered into ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Let me see, the Yalta agreement was in February 
of 1945, and was followed within a few months, I think, by a direct 
Chinese Nationalist Treaty with Russia. 

Senator Jenner. In other words, the treaty you are reading from 
followed the Yalta agreement. Now I will ask you : Was Chiang Kai- 
shek or the Chinese Government represented at the Yalta agreement ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Jenner. And if you were the leader of a country and you 
had been "sold down the river," would you not begin fighting for your 
life, and do you suppose that had anything to do with this treaty that 
you have been reading about, as to which you do not know who 
wrote it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I have just quoted from George Keenan, 
who was in the State Department 

Senator Jenner. I remember that. 

Mr. Lattimore. Handling these affaiis, Avhich I was not, and there- 
fore better informed on the subjects than I am, stating presumabl}^ as 
authoritatively as it can be stated that before Yalta, Chiang Kai-shek 
had asked us to undertake these conversations. 

Senator Jenner. Was Chiang consulted about Yalta and the agree- 
ments reached at Yalta? 

Mr. Larrimore. ]\Iy understanding is that Chiang asked us to under- 
take discussions with the Russians, which led up to what was decided 
at Yalta. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3011 

Senator Jenner. And he was not at Yalta, and lie was not consulted 
about the future interests of his country, and he was one of our allies, 
was he not. Professor ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, the evidence that I have just read is a 
clear indication that he was not only consulted, but that he was con- 
sulted at his own initiative, and consulted before Yalta. 

Senator Smith. Was there not a refusal to him to have him present 
at Yalta? 

Mr. Lattimore. My memory of that. Senator, is somewhat hazy, 
and T think it could be looked "up in the white book that there was an 
agreement between the Americans and the British before going to 
Yalta, not involving the Eussians at all but an American-British agree- 
ment, that in view of the proved leaking security of Chungking, 
where top secrets were steadily being reported to the Japanese, it was 
unadvisable to have a Chinese Nationalist representative at a confer- 
ence where we hoped, as the outcome, to get the consent of Russia to 
enter the far eastern war against Japan, because if that had leaked 
to Japan through Chungking, it would have been a disaster. 

Senator Jexxer. And at that time, that particular time, is it not 
correct that the military leaders were telling us that Japan was a 
defeated nation ; and that we entered into an agreement with Eussia, 
unbeknownst to Chiang Kai-shek, to equip an army, a Siberian Rus- 
sian Army of 1,250,000 Russian soldiers, to fight with us 6 days in a 
war against Japan? Is tliat correct, sir? 

Mr, Lattimore. I don't believe it is, Senator. 

Senator Jexner. All right. 

]Mr. Lattimore. I believe the record shows that the pressure at 
Yalta to accept anything that the Russians might demand as a condi- 
tion for entering the war against Japan, came primarily from the 
armed services. 

Senator Smith. Well, there were efforts made by at least someone in 
the American forces to keep the Yalta agreement from being entered 
into, with respect to Eussia coming to war for that short f)eriod of 
time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe 1 have read something about an effort on 
the part of some group within the Armed Forces to change that 
decision. 

Senator Smith. Was INIr. Keenan there? 

Mr. Lattimore. At Yalta ? I believe he was, but I am not sure. 

Senator Smith. Who was the main man representing the State De- 
partment at Yalta? Was it not Mr. x\lger Hiss? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir, I believe Mr. Hiss had a rather subordinate 
position at Yalta, and if Mr. Keenan was there he certainly far out- 
ranked Hiss. 

Senator Smith. But you do not know whether Keenan was there, 
and you do not know if he was there ? 

MV. Lattimore. No. Let me see, I think Stettinius was there. 

Senator Smith. But Hiss was the confidential man dealing with 
Stettinius and the President at Yalta ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know how confidential the position held by 
Hiss was. Senator Smith. My understanding is that at that time his 
position in the Department of State was rather low. 

Senator Smith. Well, there is no doubt but what Yalta sealed the 
doom of Nationalist China, did it not ? 



3012 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I should question that very much, Senator. 

Senator Smith. You think it had nothing to do with it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should say that on the contrary, as far as the 
direct effects of Yalta reached, they favored the early entry of Chiang 
Kai-shek's troops into Manchuria. 

Senator Smith. In any event, after the Yalta Agreement, the Na- 
tionalist cause got continuously worse, did it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, it didn't get continuously worse, Senator. In 
the first period after the surrender of Japan, there was a steadily 
increasing expansion of the territory occupied, military power, and 
military authority of the Nationalist Government, and the decline 
came after that expansion. 

Senator Smith. How long after that expansion ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, let me see. I think it began, the decline 
began — I am not sure of my memory here, and I would have to look 
up the record — but I believe toward the end of 1948, and I do recall 
that General Wedemeyer, who has been cited here, attributed the 
weakening of the position of Chiang Kai-shek partly to unwise mili- 
tary overexpansion, against which Wedemeyer himself advised, but in 
vain. 

Senator Jenner. You would not agree. Professor, that the decline 
of Nationalist China started after General Marshall went over and 
we talked with the Communist troops and tried to get them into a 
united-front government; and failing that, for the next 15 months 
after Marshall returned from his mission we did not give Chiang any 
aid, although the money was appropriated for it. And you would not 
mark that as the beginning of the decline of Nationalist China? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I would not agree that the decline of 
Nationalist China came because of General Marshall's mission. 

Senator Jenner. As a result of the mission. 

Mr. Lattimore. Or as a result of the mission. 

Senator Jenner. All right. 

Senator Smith. Did you hear the testimony of Admiral Cooke be- 
fore this committee, about how he sat there in command of the United 
States naval forces in Chinese waters and saw this disintegration of 
the Nationalist forces brought about by the policy that we had then 
adopted? I am just asking you if you know about that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I read that testimony, and I was struck by the fact 
that nobody asked Admiral Cooke whether, in his present activities, 
he draws any financial advantage from operations associated with 
Chiang Kai-shek. 

Senator Smith. What do you mean by that? Do you want to ask 
him that question ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that Admiral Cooke is associated with a 
corporation of some kind doing business on Formosa, partly in mili- 
tary supplies. 

Senator Smith. You think that influences his activities back there, 
or his judgment back there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that it is a question, at least in view of the 
kind of questions that have been asked of me before this committee, 
that it would have been a proper question to have asked of Admiral 
Cooke. 

Senator Smith. Is anybody questioning what you are doing now, 
and how you are earning your living ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3013 

Mr. Lattimore. It seems to me that the entire assault upon me by 
this committee or its counsel — and I don't know where the responsi- 
bility is distributed — is predicated on a prejudgment that I am a man 
of bad faith. 

Senator Smith. I was asking you about Admiral Cooke's testimony, 
and you read it and you know what he said, do you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that it is a usual procedure, when people 
are questioned about problems of this kind, to determine whether they 
are or are not interested parties. 

Senator Smith. Do you have any doubt as to the patriotism and 
loyalty of Admiral Cooke ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have never met Admiral Cooke, and I am merely 
saying that a question of that kind would have been proper, in my 
opinion. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you think that you are helping your position, 
sir, by attacking the honor of Admiral Cooke ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I am not attacking the honor of 
Admiral Cooke. I am making some comments on the procedure of this 
committee. 

Senator O'Conor. It is very evident that we will not be able to con- 
clude, and I thought that we would get to a natural breaking point. 

Senator Ferguson. May I just ask one question? Did you know 
that Mr, Hiss, Alger Hiss, testified before the Un-American Activities 
Committee that he was proud to be closely connected with the Yalta 
agreement ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I didn't know that, Senator. 

Mr. Sourwine. Before the record closes, Mr. Chairman, I think 
this comment should be made at this point : that at the beginning of 
Admiral Cooke's testimony, he was asked about liis present connec- 
tions, and his present business, and he testified with regard to it. 

Senator Smith. I wonder if the witness would like to reiterate his 
statement that Admiral Cooke was not asked about it or did not tell us 
about it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. He was not asked if he drew any financial ad- 
vantage from it. 

Senator Smith. What do you mean by that? You mean you are 
charging Admiral Cooke with converting or embezzling Government 
property ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Just what do you mean by "financial advantage"? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am simply raising the question of the value of 
showing in discussions of this kind whether a man may or may not 
be an interested party in the opinions which he expresses.*^ 

Mr. Sourwine. May I read the testimony, just a half a page here, 
at the outset of Admiral Cooke's testimony ? He was asked : 

Will you give your full name and residence to the reporter? 

And he said : 

Charles Maynard Cooke. My permanent residence is in Sonoma, Calif. The 
last 2 years I have been living in Formosa. 

Question. What is your present military status, Admiral Cooke? 

Answer. I am a retired admiral, United States Navy. 

Question. When did you retire from the United States Navy? 

Answer. The 1st of May 1498. 

Question. Admiral Cooke, will you tell us what your present occupation is? 



3014 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Answer. My present occupation is that I have just terminated a tour of serv- 
ice as an employee of the Commerce International-China, which has been fur- 
nishing technical services to the Chinese in Formosa. 

Question. Is that an American corporation, Admiral Cooke? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. What was your position with that corporation? 

Answer. I occupied a position of coordinator of this group of technicians that 
served in Formosa. 

Question. Who were those technicians, Admiral Cooke? 

Answer. They were some retired officers, some Reserve oflficers, some ex- 
officers of the services of the United States, and some enlisted men, too. 

Question. They are all United States citizens? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. They were all employees of Commerce International-China? 

Answer. Yes ; CIC, as it is referred to. 

Question. Admiral Cooke, have you ever been in the employ of the Chinese 
Government? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Now, Dr. Lattimore, you are willing, after your 
criticism of the committee, you are willing to sit here and impugn the 
motives and blacken the character of a retired naval officer, against 
whom you know nothing? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not impugning Admiral Cooke's character. 

Senator Smith. What did j^ou mean when you interjected what 
you did ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am merely pointing out that when this com- 
mittee has before it myself or Mr. Holland, or Mr. Carter, or Mr. 
Vincent, the record shows that we are asked the most searching and 
probing questions of every kind; and that no witness who has been 
brought before this committee making charges of the disloyalty of in- 
divicUtals or the incompetence of American foreign policy, has been 
asked any questions of an even remotely comparable kind. 

I wish to add specifically that I am not impugning the motives or 
the character of Admiral Cooke. 

Senator Smith. Will you answer this question ? Why did you say 
what you did about Admiral Cooke ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Because I thought that it was pertinent to the ques- 
tion of the procedure of this committee. 

Senator Smith. What did that have to do, whether or not Admiral 
Cooke had been employed by these other people, what did that have to 
do with the procedure before this committee, unless you meant to 
impeach him and his character? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did not mean to impeach him or his character. 
Senator. It is a well-known fact that, I believe, a man's judgment may 
be unconsciously affected by the point where his personal interest or 
advantage lies. 

Mr. 1^'oRTAS. May I respectfully suggest this witness has been on 
the stand about 2 hours and 25 minutes, with just a 5-minute break? 

Senator O'Conor. I was undertaking to make a comment on that 
very point. We have been advised that the Senate is about to vote 
on a very important issue. As a matter of fact, tliere may be a series 
of votes, and it appears impossible for us to continue at this point. 
I was going to ask my colleagues, and of course counsel, as to their 
convenience in returning. 

May I ask, in view of all of the developments, do you consider that 
it would be proper to put in the record the entire statement at this 



IXSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3015 

time, and consider it as having been submitted and incorporated in 
the record in toto? 

Mr. FoRTAS. It is Mr. Lattimore's judgment; but since you have 
asked me, it seems to me that your ruling allowing him to read seg- 
ments of it is a very wise one. 

Senator O'Conor. It has not progressed as far as I thought it 
might. 

Mr. FoRTAs. I think we have made pretty good progress, and if 
Mr. Lattimore asked me my opinion, I would suggest that we continue 
on that basis; and it is his decision. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have already tried to make the suggestion to 
you that we should continue on the same basis. 

Senator O'Conor. All right. I thought that I would make possible 
the introduction of the entire statement, which of course is already 
a matter of public knowledge, anyhow, because it has been distributed, 
and I thought it might just expedite the questioning. But if you feel 
that it is necessary to do it this way, we will do so. 

We will recess until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m., 
Thursday, February 28, 1952.) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC EELATIONS 



THURSDAY, FEBRUAEY 28, 1952 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the 
Administration of the Internal Security 

Act and Other Internal Security Laws, 

of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washing,ton, D. G. 

The subcommittee met at 10 : 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 
424 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Herbert R. O'Conor, pre- 
siding. 

Present: Senators McCarran, O'Conor (presiding), Smith, Fergu- 
son, Jenner, and Watkins. 

Also present: Senator McCarthy; J. G. Sourwine, committee coun- 
sel ; and Eobert Morris, subcommittee counsel. 

Senator O'Conor. The hearing will please be in order. 

We will now resimie the hearing of the witness, Owen Lattimore. 

TESTIMONY OP OWEN LATTIMORE ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

ABE FOETAS 

Senator O'Conor. It occurs to me, Mr. Lattimore, that you were 
on page 21 of your statement, just at the beginning of the fourth para- 
graph, if I am not mistaken. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask one question, and I 
won't interrupt Mr. Lattimore for a while then. 

Yesterday, Mr. Lattimore, you quoted at some length from the Re- 
porter, a magazine. Do you know whether that magazine has actively 
advocated the recognition of Communist China ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I do not. 

Senator O'Conor. The paragraph, I think, starts: "Each of these 
men * * *." 

jNIr. Lattimore. Each of these men is a loss to the State Depart- 
ment — and there are few men of the same caliber left. The indirect 
damage to the conduct of our diplomacy is even greater. The more 
politically controversial our problems of diplomacy are, the more vital 
it is that the experts in the State Department should be able to dis- 
cuss them fully, frankly, and without fear, and should be free to 
consult with academic experts. But we have reached a point of gen- 
eral intimidation at which our diplomatic representatives must feel 
under great pressure to report back to Washington only what it is 
safe to report, and make only those policy recommendations that they 
feel sure will not result in political attacks on their careers. 

3017 



3018 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

I am reminded, Senators, of something that once happened to the 
Russians. In 1939 they invaded Finland, sure that they were going 
to have a walk-over, but suffered serious military defeats and tre- 
mendous damage to their prestige. Does anybody doubt that this was 
because political intimidation had made yes-men of the Soviet dip- 
lomats reporting to Moscow ? Communist doctrine and the party line 
required them to report that the Finns were groaning under bougeois- 
capitalist oppression, and would welcome the Russian invaders. They 
dared not report the truth, that the Finns were a democratic people, 
willing to fight against even the Russian colossus in defense of their 
liberties. The consequence was that Russia walked into a booby 
trap. 

The anger of the American people will be great. Senators, if the 
political reporting of the State De])artment degenerates to this point 
because of political persecution, intimidation, and the demand that the 
China lobby be empowered to lay down a line to the State Department. 
"V^Hiat booby traps is the China lobby laying on the road ahead of us? 

There are three interpretations that have been made of the records 
of the State Department victims of the China lobby : 

Senator Ferguson. Would you name the China lobby ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The China lobby, Senator, is, I think, something 
that has been characterized, in a political rather than legal use of 
terminology, as an open conspiracy. 

Senator Ferguson. I understood yesterday you did not know what 
a "conspiracy" was. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is why I said this morning "in political rather 
than legal terminology," I don't know what a conspiracy is in legal 
terminology. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what it is politically ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The expression "open conspiracy" is one that is 
fairly frequent in the writing of political scientists. 

Senator Ferguson. What is it? What is an "open conspiracy," 
politically? 

Mr, Lattimore. I was just trying to get to that. Senator. An open 
conspiracy may be said to exist when people who are leagued together, 
not as members of an organization but because they have a common 
purpose, do not claim to be a membei'ship organization but openly 
state what their objectives are and openly advertise their sympathies 
with each other, and quote each other's opinions and works, and so 
forth. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you give us the common purpose of the 
China lobby? 

Mr. Lattimore. The common purpose of the China lobby is to make 
support of the driftwood government on the beaches of Formosa a 
primary objective of American foreign policy, subordinating other 
questions of policy to the consideration of all-out aid to Chiang Kai- 
shek; the activation of a campaign, based on Formosa, for the re- 
covery of the mainland, and so forth. 

Senator Ferguson. As I understand it, then, you speak of the Na- 
tionalist Government as the "driftwood" government? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that that is a fair circumstantial characteri- 
zation, Sonator. 

Senator Ferguson, You once worked for Chiang Kai-shek. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3019 



Mr. Lattimore. It was not a driftwood government at that time. 
I worked for Chiang Kai-shek and I did the best I could for him. 

Senator Ferguson, Did you know that the Communist line changed 
in July of 1943, and that your magazine carried the change of the 
party line, as far as Chiang Kai-shek's government was concerned? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, in the Tydings hearings, it was repeatedly 
asserted 

The Chairman. The question is: Did you know it? That can be 
answered "yes" or "no." 

Mr. Lattimore. I know it only by the assertions that were made 
before the Tydings committee in 1950. As for the second part of your 
question 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know that Mr. Bissell, in July of 1943, 
in your magazine — I do not think you were editor at that time, were 
you? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was not editor. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know that the party line changed,- and 
that the magazine carried the change of the partj^ line ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I ask for the name of the magazine, Senator? 

Senator Ferguson. Pacific Affairs, the one that you had been 
editor of. 

Mr. Lattimore. Aren't you wrong. Senator, and aren't you re- 
ferring 

The Chairman. Answer the question. That is not the question. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know Bissell wrote an article in July 
of 1943, on the change of tlie party line, as far as Chiang Kai-shek's 
government was concerned ? 

Mr. Lattimore. If I may make a slight correction, I believe the 
gentleman's name is Bisson and not Bissell. 

The Chairman. I ask that he answer these questions "Yes" or "No," 

Senator O'Conor. Just a second. Wliere the question admits of a 
direct answer, as such a question does, it would expedite matters, we 
think, if you would answer it directly, and then any explanatory state- 
ment that might be made can be admitted. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I knew of it as of 1950. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, when did you change against the National- 
ist Government, against what you called the "drift-wood govern- 
ment"? 

Mr. Lattimore. I, Senator, did not change against any government. 
I would find it hard to document my answer here exactly, but I think 
about 19 — oh, by tlie end of the war, I had grave doubts whether the 
Nationalist Government could survive a civil war; and by 1947 I was 
sure that they couldn't win a civil war ; and I think by about 1948 I 
was convinced they were going to lose the civil war. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know now that your own Government, 
the United States Government, is supporting what you class as the 
"driftwood" government ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do, and I think it is a mistaken policy. 

Senator Ferguson. And you are challenging the opinion and the 
honesty of people who you claim are assembled together as the China 
lobby, who are supporting the very thing that their Government is 
supporting, that is, the Nationalist Government of China; is that not 
a fact? 



3020 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir, not exactly. I am maintaining my own 
opinion as an expert, so far as I am an expert, that the Government on 
Formosa is not viably for a long period. I think any policy based 
on that assumption is a mistaken policy that will lead "us eventually 
into great difficulties. You have said that I have challenged the good 
faith 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. Of the China lobby. I have just said that the 
China lobby is a rather amorphous thing, and I would certainly not 
challenge the good faith of every person associated with the China 
lobby. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, now, do you mean to say that what you 
say in here is praise of the principles of the China lobby ? 

Mr. Lattimore. "WliatI say here is that the consequences of sub- 
mitting to intimidation which characterizes as a traitor or an agent 
of Eussia or the Chinese Communists, or a fellow traveler of the 
American Communists, anybody who voices his opinion that the 
China lobby is wrong, is one that is disastrous to the conduct of 
foreign policy in this country. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, when you say in your statement that the 
State Department is the victim of the China lobby 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you not impugning the motives of the China 
lobby in advocating the support of what you call the "driftwood" 
government ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am impugning the tactics of the China lobby in 
its resort to intimidation instead of fair argument based on analysis 
and discussion of facts. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think if the State Department followed 
your philosophy that you have stated here this morning^ that they 
would be victims and would you call them victims of you? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is a hypothetical question, "of you" 

Senator Ferguson. You do not think that they will follow it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Because the Department has never followed my 
advice or opinions. 

Senator Ferguson. This morning you indicated that the State De- 
partment should call in academic people, such as you, for consulta- 
tions, is that right ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is quite right; and if I may qualify that a 
moment, I believe that the State Department should call in people 
who hold my point of view, and who hold all other points of view. 

Senator Ferguson. Even including the Communist point of view ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that the State Department should certainly 
familiarize itself with the Communist point of view. The Communist 
point of view may be a dangerous factor in our present political life, 
but nobody can deny it is important. 

Senator Ferguson. But do you not think if a man is called in as 
a consultant on the Communist point of view, he should be openly 
known to every member of the State Department and the public that 
he is a Communist ? 

]\Ir. Latitmore. I am not sure, Senator, how I would handle a dif- 
ficult problem of this kind. I have never been faced with it. Ir^ 
government, it is obviously necessary to have a very careful and au- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3021 

tlioritative study of Communist aims, methods, and so on, and my 
inclination is to believe that that kind of study can be made best, not 
by consulting Communists, but by the study of people who never have 
been Communists, and are neither Communists nor ex-Communists, 
but are trained experts in political science, economics, and so forth. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you would say that the State Department 
was not proper in calling in, for instance, Mr. Rosinger, as an expert, 
and then find that he comes before this committee and when asked 
the question as to whether or not he was or was not a Communist at 
the time that he was called in as an expert by the State Department, 
that he refuses to answer on the ground it would tend to incriminate 
him? 

Mr. Lattimore. You mean the State Department should have 
known before what other people only knew afterward ? 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that that is an answer to my 
question ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, I do not. 

I asked whether you thought it was correct 

Senator O'Conor. The question was whether you approved of that 
procedure. 

Mr. Lattimore. I approve of the State Department calling in any- 
body who at the time he is called in holds a reputable position in the 
field of writing and publishing about foreign policy in this country, 
and I do not think that they should automatically adopt the opin- 
ions of any one person. I think that they should, and I believe that 
they do to the best of their ability, subject to the present atmosphere 
of intimidation, try to assemble opinion, sort it, and come to consid- 
ered conclusions themselves. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it your considered judgment that the Secre- 
tary of State now is intunidated? You charge it many times here 
in this statement. 

Mr. Lattimore. I should say the indications run that way, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, will you give us what the intimidation is ? 
You see, Mr. Lattimore, as I understand it, j^ou are one of these men 
that insists that there should not be any reflections cast upon anyone 
or his character without real proof, and now, what is your proof that 
the Secretary of State is being intimidated? That is a very serious 
charge against a Cabinet officer. 

Mr. LATriMORE. I should say that the drift of our policy for the 
last couple of years shows that while the State Department still, to a 
certain extent, protests that it is following its own policy, it is largely 
following, in fact, the policy of its most intemperate critics. 

Senator Ferguson. And you call the State Department, then, the 
victim of its critics because you personally do not agree with the opin- 
ions of the critics, is that correct ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say that, no, it is not a question of whether 
I agree with the opinions of the critics ; it is a question of an observed 
phenomenon which has been frequently referred to in the press of this 
country, as well as in the press of Great Britain, as saying that the 
State Department has become the prisoner or the captive of its critics. 

Senator Ferguson. You objected very strenuously to some remarks 
about you, as to the State Department being the victim of your 
philosophy, did you not ? 

88348— 52— pt. 9- 9 



3022 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I have objected to having it represented that my 
opinions influenced the State Department when in fact they did not; 
and if my opinions had influenced the State Department, that would 
be part of the record, and I would have no objection whatever. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you not ad^^ocate that we allow it to appear 
that we had lost Korea ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. "WHiat did you state ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I wrote a syndicated newspaper article in which I 
attempted to analyze what I thought was the then state of discussion 
of foreign policy in Washington, as of the end of 1949, I think. 

Senator Ferguson. What was your remark on that? 

Mr. Lattimore. And my remark, which has been used out of con- 
text by many people and I think is one of the most unscrupulous cases 
of using my writings out of context that I know of, contained not a 
word of advice to Washington policy makers. I said as clearly as I 
could that in the previous case of China, Chiang Kai-shek had fallen, 
and Chiang Kai-shek had been supported by this country, and as a 
result the State Department had been accused not merely of letting 
Chiang Kai-shek fall but of pushing him over. 

In the case of Korea, as of the summer of 1949, it had been widely 
advertised that Korea was not considered an essential part of the de- 
fense periphery of the United States; as it appeared in the press it 
was stated that a line had been drawn which included Japan and 
Okinawa but did not include Korea or Formosa, as I recall. I said 
that as soon as the American military forces had been completely 
withdrawn from South Korea, it was likely that South Korea would 
fall; and, with the China lobby accusations in mind, I warned that 
Washington policy planners did not want the eventual fall of South 
Korea to be turned against them in an accusation that South Korea 
had not merely fallen but had been pushed by the State Department. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, have you ever worked for or 
been in the employ of any other government than the United States? 

Mr. Lattimore. May t qualify that answer. Senator? I worked 
for Chiang Kai-shek. 

Senator O'C^onor. The question is as to any other government. It 
admits of a direct answer : You were or you were not. And if you 
were, and then desire to make any explanation, that is perfectly in 
order. But you ought to answer the question directly first. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't tliink I can. Senator. I want to ask for the 
opinion of you gentlemen on this subject. I was in the employ of 
Chiang Kai-shek, who was at the head 

Senator Ferguson. Please answer : Were you or were you not in the 
employ of any other government? 

Mr. FoRTAS. Point of order. 

The Chairman. You have no right to ask for a point of order. 

Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Just a minute. I object to that 
way of proceeding. This gentleman has no right to ask for a point 
of order, and he is no part of this body. 

Mr. Lattimore. Let me rephrase the beginning of my reply. I da 
not believe 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator O'Conor. Just a second, Mr. Lattimore- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3023 

The question is one -svhich, in the opinion of the Chair, does admit 
of a direct answer. He eitlier was or was not. Now, he can make 
any explanation he desires after he has answered the question. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a second, before that goes any 
further. 

I advised this gentleman when he first come in here of what his 
province would be. Now, that was no part of it, your breaking in 
with any point of order. Now, if you do that again, you are going to 
be excluded from this committee. 

Mr. FoRTAS. That is up to you. 

The Chairman. That is all right, and don't do it again. 

Mr. FoRTAS. That is up to you. 

The Chairman. I will certainly do it. 

Mr. FoRTAS. You have the power. 

Senator O'Conor. Proceed, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, you have stated that in the opinion of the 
Chair, the question is susceptible to a "yes" or "no" answer. May I 
state that, in my opinion, it is not susceptible to a "yes" or "no" an- 
swer, and I want to explain why. However, as I have said before, 
if the committee or any member of the committee insists on putting 
words in my mouth, I will use those words. 

Senator O'Conor. Are we to understand, then, Mr. Lattimore, that 
you do not know whether you were or were not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Now I will ask the next question. Your answer 
is that you do not know. 

Senator O'Conor. If that is correct, you can proceed. 

Senator Ferguson. Just a moment. 

My next question — that answers that question, and you do not know. 
I will ask you whether or not any of your trips have ever been financed 
by any foreign government ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The answer to that question depends on the pre- 
vious one and, therefore, I will have to answer again I do not know. 

Senator Ferguson. I will noAv exclude from my question the Na- 
tionalist Government of China, and as to anv other government, have 
any oi your trips been financed m any amount or in any way ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I think I should yes to that. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, will you give us the nations or the govern- 
ments that have financed your trips? 

Mr. Latitmore. Well, in 1929, when I was traveling in Manchuria, 
I was allowed to buy tickets at rebate rates on the South Manchuria 
Railway', which was Japanese-owned and I believe partly a private 
corporation and partly a Government corporation. This was a usual 
practice of the South Manchuria Railway at that time, a privilege that 
they offered to all writers and journalists. 

In 1936, when I traveled home from China to this country via 
Siberia, and spent some days in Moscow, I made a side trip to Lenin- 
grad ; and as I recall, the expenses of that trip were paid by the Soviet 
branch of what was then the Soviet Council of the IPR. 

Senator Ferguson. That would be the Government? 

Mr. Lattimore. In Russia, that would be either a branch of the 
Government or an organization subsidized by the Government, and 
we needn't quibble about that. 



3024 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Then perhaps to be absolutely scrupulous, I should say that when 
I accompanied Vice President Wallace, as he then was, on his mission 
in Siberia and China in 1944, 1 do not know, but possibly a part of the 
local expenses in Siberia and China of the party as a whole, not of me 
individually unless I was included in the whole, may have been borne 
by the Russian or Chinese Governments. 

Senator Ferguson. Were you ever in the employ of the British 
Government ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Were you ever employed by any British subjects 
to make trips or financed by them ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was employed in a British firm which was regis- 
tered as a British firm, although it had other nationals in its employ ; 
and in the course of ordinary business work I traveled fairly exten- 
sively in China on firm expense accounts. 

Sentaor Ferguson. What was the firm? 

Mr. Lattimore. The firm was the firm of Arnhold & Co., registered 
as a British firm, operating at a number of places in China, and it was 
an import and export and engineering firm. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever do any writing that was directly 
or indirectly financed by the British Government ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Neither directly nor indirectly, as far as I know. 
I worked for a newspaper once which was British owned. 

Senator Ferguson. What paper? 

Mr. Lattimore. The Peking and Tientsin Times, of Tientsin, 
China. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever work for any British subjects on 
writings that were financed by the British subjects, directly or indi- 
rectly? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have contributed to British publications. 

Senator Ferguson. In no other way? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever make a trip into Mongolia for the 
British ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think so. Oh, at one time when I was travel- 
ing in Mongolia, I had a supplementary grant — which was considered 
an honor award, but took the form of a financial grant, which I used 
for expenses of my traveling — from the Eoyal Geographical Society. 

Senator Ferguson. Of Britain ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you write anything for that compensation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Frequently for the publication of the Royal Geo- 
graphical Society. 

Senator Ferguson. For the particular grant that you had from the 
Royal Geographical Society? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe so. I don't believe that there 
was any publication. 

Senator Ferguson. Going back to my asking you about what you 
said in relation to Korea, I take from the Sunday Compass — you 
know what that is ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a paper in New York, I believe. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3025 

Senator Ferguson. This is an editorial. I tliink they quote you 
here as saying : 

The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall — but not to let it look 
as though we pushed it. 

Mr. Lattimore. If the Compass quoted me to that effect, they mis- 
understood what I wrote in the original article, and I should like to 
have the original article put in the record, if I may. 

Senator Ferguson. I will ask that it be made a part of the record. 

Mr. Lattuviore. When I wrote that article, my intention — and I 
believe it was clear from the text — was to say, not that this was my 
advice, but that this was the problem that confronted policy makers 
in Washington. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you approve that policy ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not entirely. I don't know whether this is in 
writing at any time, but I certainly remember my attitude at the time, 
and that was that if we were going to withdraw from Korea and leave 
a situation in which I was sure that the South Korean Government 
was going to fall, then if you are getting out, the thing to do is to 
get out and not stay there with one foot to be caught in a trap. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, do you have the original article 
from which you said that quotation was incorrectly drawn? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have it at home. 

Senator Smith. I would like to know if that is a signed article by 
you. It says "By Owen Lattimore." 

Senator Ferguson. I want to correct it. I took that as being part 
of this editorial, and I do see now, as Senator Smith points out, that 
there is a division there and it is not part of the editorial. 

It looks like 5'our language. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is my language, and this paragraph at the end 
has been taken without reference to the article as a whole. And I 
submit the article as a whole means exactly what I have just said. 

Senator Ferguson. Were you paid for this article? 

Mr. Lattimore. This, incidentally, I should like to make clear, Sen- 
ator, is not an article, in minor detail, it is not an article written for 
the Sunday Compass. It is an article written for a syndicate which 
sold the article to whatever papers 

Senator Smith. Did you write the article? 

Mr. Lattimore, Certainly I wrote it. 

Senator Smith. All right, then, that speaks for itself. 

Senator Ferguson. This is your language ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is my language; the whole article is my 
language. 

Senator Ferguson. What were you asking, and I consented, to put 
in the record ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The whole article. 

Senator Ferguson. And you say that that is not in the whole article ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I say that this concluding paragraph is only a part 
of the whole article, which sums up what I considered at the time to be 
the discussion of policy toward Korea in Washington at that time. 

Senator Ferguson. What did you mean by the last line : "Hence the 
recommendation of a parting grant of $150,000,000.*'? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I look over the article as a whole ? 

Senator O'Conor. You may ; yes, indeed. 



3026 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

It might help us all in evaluating it if you were to give the date. 

Mr. Lattimore. The date is July 1949. It is a little earlier than I 
thought. 

Senator, since several people are participating in this discussion, 
and since not everybody has a text, may I read the full text so that we 
all have it in our minds ? 

Senator O'Conor. We had intended, or I had at least, to put the 
entire article in the record, but I think that you are entitled to quote 
any part of it that you think gives a different impression than that 
which is contained in the paragraph there. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think. Senator, in order to make it clear that I am 
here quoting opinion rather than stating opinion, it would be advisable 
to let me read the whole article, because the article is linked, paragraph 
by paragraph, and I don't think that any isolated paragraph gives the 
full 

Senator O'Conor. You have been given the article. You may read 
it. 

Mr. Lattimore. "Washington," and this is July 17, 1949. 

Senator Ferguson. Were you paid for that article by the Compass ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not by the Compass. 

Senator Ferguson. By a syndicate. And so you were really, in 
effect, paid, then, for the w^riting of this article; and what syndicate? 

Mr. Lattimore. Overseas News Agency, and it is marked here. 
"ONA." [Reading:] 

Washington (ONA). — It is a foregone conclusion that the Truman adminis- 
tration and the Department of State are going to have a rough time with their 
Korean policy. By the same token, Republicans in Congress, together with 
Democrats who are critical of United States policy in Asia, are going to have 
a field day sniping at the ofiicial presentation of the policy of granting President 
Syngman Rhee's South Korea .$150,000,000 for a "recovery program." 

As the record stands, it is now revealed that Secretary of State Dean Ache- 
son made a strong appeal for the .$1.50,000,000 grant before a closed session of thA 
Plouse Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Unless South Korea gets the money, he warned, it will fall within 3 months. 

Simultaneously with this urgent appeal, however, it is also revealed that the 
evacuation of American occupation troops from South Korea, where they havo 
been sitting on the lid ever since the end of the war with Japan, has now been 
completed. All that remain are about 200 officers and men who have the dismal 
and unpromising mission of attempting to train an anti-Communist and anti- 
Russian defense force. 

There is an ominous comparison between this mission and the MAGIC force — 

That is capital "M," capital "A," capital "G," capital "I," cap- 
ital "C"— 

or military advisory group in China, which found itself completely baffled by 
corruption and personal warlordism in Chiang Kai-shek's China. 

Yet there is logic to the course of action advocated by Secretary Acheson. It 
is, moreover, a perfectly convincing logic. What makes the utterances of the 
Secretary of State sound absurd is not the logic of United States policy, but the 
fact that the policy is now conducted under rules of protocol which have become 
as rigid as tribal taboos. 

For the logic we must go back to the sad precedent of China. The sad truth 
is that Gen. George C. Marshall 

Senator Ferguson. Wait a minute. "Sad" is not in there on the 
"truth." 

Mr. Lattimore. It was "sad precedent" — and I reread the word 
"sad" [reading] : 

The truth is that Gen. George C. Marshall, on his mission to China in 1946, 
before he became Secretary of State, became convinced of several unpleasant 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3027 

things which, because of the state of political opinion in America, could not be 
stated out loud. 

Senator Ferguson. Now you are going to name all of those things. 
Mr. Latti3iore (reading) : 

First, he was convinced that the Kuomintang would not be able to triumph 
over the Chinese Communists unless it took American advice. 

Second, he was convinced that politically and militarily America could not 
handle the situation in China by taking the Kuomintang by the scruff of the neck 
and the seat of the pants and making it behave. Yet he could not, as a states- 
man, advise what seemed sensible to him as a general — that the United States 
simply pull out and abandon an untenable position. 

As a compromise, American policy took a course of relative inaction, but not 
complete inaction. As it became more and more obvious that Chiang Kai-shek 
and the Kuomintang were doomed the conduct of American policy became 
increasingly delicate. The problem was how to allow them to fall without making 
it look as if the United States had pushed them. Such a policy never succeeds 
completely, and critics have done their best to make the public believe that the 
United States did push Chiang and the Kuomintang over the cliff. 

Korea is another chapter in the same unhappy story. I have yet to meet an 
American who knows all the facts and believes that Syngman Rhee is either 
a popular or a competent President of South Korea. In spite of high-pressure 
elections, his lecrislature is more badly split against him than China's was against 
Chiang Kai-shek. 

Senator Smith. Than China's was? 
Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Against Chiang Kai-shek. 

The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall, but not to let it look as 
though we pushed it. Hence the recommendation of a parting grant of 
$150,000,000. 

I submit that that is exactly what I said it was. 

Senator Ferguson. Yon did not put in quotes that this was some- 
body else's statement about letting it fall. 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't put it in quotes. 

Senator Ferguson. That was your opinion? 

Mr. Lattimore. My opinion was 

Senator Ferguson. Answer my question. That was your opinion? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was trying to convey at that time 

Senator Ferguson. I want to know what you did convey, and not 
what you were trying to convey. What about what you did convey ? 

Senator O'Conor. You are at liberty to state whether that correctly 
expresses your view^point, and whether you did use those words, and, 
if it admits of any other interpretation, you are free to express it. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes; I think it admits of another interpretation 
than the one Senator Ferguson is trying to put on it. 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you whether anyone else used that 
phrase : "The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall, but 
not to let it look as though we pushed it" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether anybody else used the phrase 
or not, Senator, but I think that that paragraph clearly implies that 
this is the problem with which the State Department is grappling in 
Washington as of July 1949, and is not my advice to the State 
Department. 

Senator Watkins. Let me ask you this question: Did you favor 
the granting of $150,000,000 to South Korea, so when 

Mr. Lattimore. I said there, I say there quite clearly in the article, 
Senator, that I consider that there is logic to it ; yes. 



3028 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Watkins. To give them $150,000,000 so when they did go 
over to the Communists, they would have $150,000,000 to start off 
in supporting Communist causes ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. I thought, as I think it is clear from that 
article, I agreed with people in Washington who thought that the 
South Korean Government would probably not be able to stand ; but 
I thought that the only honest policy for the United States was to do 
what was humanly possible in the situation, to give the South Korean 
Government what it needed to stand, so that if it fell, or when, as I 
believed, it fell, it should not appear that there could be no honest 
accusation that the United States had simply abandoned Korea. 

Senator Watkins. You understand that if they were given $150,000- 
000, knowing that they are going to fall, that they would be that much 
enriched and would have that much money to help out in the Commu- 
nist cause and it would go into Communist hands, that $150,000,000; 
is that not the logical conclusion from that recommendation of the 
Secretary as well as your own recommendation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I answer "yes" or "no," and then qualify? 

Senator Watkins. That is the way we want you to answer. 

Mr. Lattimore. My answer is "No," and my answer is that the logic, 
on the basis of precedent in the case of China, is that out of that 
$150,000,000, probably $149,999,999.99 would end up in New York 
banks in the possession of rich Koreans. 

Senator Watkins. Then you favored giving over $149 million to go 
into the hands of some private people who would graft that much 
from the Korean Government, and you still recommended it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I recommended that we do our best to give the 
Koreans a chance, and if they misused that chance, that was their 
responsibility. 

Senator Watkins. You did not want it to come in to the Communist 
group ; you wanted them to come in pretty well fixed up ? 

Senator O'Conor. I think that he ought to be permitted to answer 
Senator Watkins' question at this point. 

Mr. Lattimore. I believed that we had done the best we could in 
Korea, or we had tried to do the best we could in Korea, with a certain 
amount of bungling; that Syngman Rhee and his crowd were pretty 
hopeless, but that the only honorable thing in the circumstances, when 
we had announced that we thought the situation was untenable by us, 
was to stake them to a chance in life ; yes. 

Senator Jenner. Did the Government follow that policy, Profes- 
sor? 

Mr. Lattimore. The Government — may I answer "Yes," with qual- 
ifications ? 

Senator Jenner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. My impression, just from recollection, is that the 
Government was in the course of following that policy, which had 
been determined before I had anything to say about it, and therefore 
was not influenced by me ; and that before it had been completed, the 
North Korean Communist aggression occurred, and our whole policy, 
in my opinion quite rightly, was immediately switched to resistance 
against armed Communist aggression. 

Senator Jenner. You stated that you feared that the corrupt Ko- 
reans would get — I forget; $149,909,999.99, or something — and that 
the balance would probably go to Korea. Now, is it not a fact that out 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3029 

of the moneys that Congress appropriated to help the Syngman Shee 
government in South Korea, actually your figures are almost correct, 
except about all we gave the South Koreans in the way of aid was 
about $200 worth of bailing wire? 

Mr. Lattimoke. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, the concluding paragraph which 
we have read, and I quote from your concluding paragi'aph, says : 

The thing to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall — but not to let it look as 
though we pushed it. Hence the recommendation of a parting grant of .$150,000,- 
000. 

Well, now, who did you expect South Korea to fall to, and what 
force or power were you thinking of when you said, "The thing to 
do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I presume at that time — and remember, I 
am not stating my own opinion, I am quoting opinion in Washing- 
ton — I assume that the conclusion must have been that it would fall 
to the Communist-dominated North Korean Government. 

Senator Smith. And you understood at that time that the N'orth 
Korean Government at that time was Communist-dominated? 

Mr. Lattimore. I certainly understood it, and my feeling on that 
subject. Senator Smith, was not a hasty conclusion; it was based on 
a considerable previous course of events — statements of opinions by 
authoritative persons. 

For instance, on June 24, Congressional Kecord, 1949, page 8297, 
Senator Knowland read into the Eecord the following quotation from 
Way of a Fighter, by General Chennault : 

Gen. George C. Marshall told Congress in the spring of 1948 that if Manchuria 
were lost to the Chinese Communists, the United States position in Southern 
Korea would be untenable. Manchuria has been lost to the Chinese Communists. 

On July 5, Congressional Record, 1949, page 8821, Senator Know- 
land stated his belief that — 

It will not be possible for the southern half of Korea, which is the Korean 
Government recognized by the United States and the other Western Powers, set 
up under the general auspices of the United Nations, to retain its freedom. 

Therefore, it was apparently the well-considered opinion of people 
in a position to know the inside of government workings much better 
than I, that this was an untenable situation. If a situation is con- 
sidered by both the top military and the top political authorities to 
be untenable, then my reaction would be, "All right, it is untenable, 
and the thing to do with an untenable situation is to get out and get 
back to a situation that is tenable." 

Senator Smith. And with that in mind, you said to let South Korea 
fall, and you meant fall to the Communists ? 

Mr. Lattimore. With that in mind, I summed that up as my read- 
ing of Washington opinion at the time. 

Senator Smith. Well, could you answer my question ? You meant 
"to fall to the Communists," and let Korea fall to the Coimnunists? 

Mr. Lattimore. 1 meant that my interpretation of Washington 
opinion was that they were prepared to let Korea fall to the Com- 
munists. 

Senator Smith. You did write this language yourself : "The thing 
to do, therefore, is to let South Korea fall," and there is no mistake 
about that being your language; is there? 



3030 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the language in which I expressed my sum- 
mi ng up of Washington opinion. 

Senator Smith. And then you go ahead and say : 

Hence the recommendation of a parting grant of $150,000,000. 

]Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Smith. Now then, you meant by that, did 5^ou not, for the 
Government of America to throw away $150,000,000 on the South 
Koreans, after j'ou had recommended that it be allowed to fall to the 
Communists ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did not recommend that it be allowed to fall to 
the Communists. 

Senator Smith. Well, you said : 

Hence the recommendation of a parting grant of $150,000,000. 

Mr. Lattimore. I stated my summing up of Washington opinion. 

Senator Smith. So that you do not say you recommended the $150,- 
000,000? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. You did not ? 

Mr. Lattemore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Now, the quotation that you read from the Record, 
the Congressional Record, was more than a year prior to this date? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Smith. Now, when did you conclude that Korea, South 
Korea, had to fall to the Communists — before this article ? How long 
before ? 

Mr. Lattimore. When I wrote this article, the discussion of this 
$150,000,000 grant was being discussed in Washington. I therefore 
looked up the newspaper records to see what had led up to the situa- 
tion, and I attempted to write an article summing that up. 

Senator Smith. Now, you were familiar, were you not, with the 
speech that Mr. Acheson made on January 5 — I believe it was — 1950, 
in which he referred to the fact that Korea and Formosa, I believe 
he put it, were beyond the defense periphery of America? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Smith. Did you approve of that policy? 

Mr. Latitmore. I understood — may I answer the question and then 
qualify it ? 

Senator O'Conor. You may do that. 

Mr. Lattimore, I approved of that policy because I understood 
that it was not solely a State Department policy but one that had 
been arrived at after authoritative military surveys of the problems 
by the military forces — the representatives of the military forces of 
the Government. 

Senator Smith. Whom did you understand that from — the State 
Department officials or the Defense Department officials ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I understood it from the press, Senator. 

Senator Smith. Only from the press? 

Mr. Lattimore. Only from the press. 

Senator Smith. You had no discussion with anyone in the State 
Department about that policy ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not believe I did. 

Senator Smith. Well, now, are you sure whether you did or did not 
discuss it with anyone in the State Department? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3031 

Mr. Lattimore, I am not sure, I say. Yes, in 1949, I would have 
seen various militarjr and civilian friends of mine, but whether I dis- 
cussed this particular problem with them, I don't recall. 

Senator Smith. You would not say that you did not discuss it with 
some of the people in the State Department ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I might have, and I would have considered it a 
perfectly legitimate subject to discuss 

Senator Smith. Well, then, was 

Mr. Lattimore. For any newspaperman to discuss. 

Senator Smith. Was that partly your conclusion, too — that Korea 
and Formosa were beyong the defense periphery of America? 

Mr. Lattimore. My conclusion, Senator, was that in view of what 
I knew from the press, and the public discussion, they were right, or 
right enough so that I wouldn't attack it. 

Senator Smith. Did you not regard that statement or enunciation 
of policy on January 5, 1950, as really an invitation for the North 
Koreans to immediately move into South Korea, when we announced 
we were not going to defend Korea and Formosa, and was that not 
tantamount to an invitation to go into Korea, for the Communists ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is a question of subjective judgment. Sena- 
tor, and it wouldn't be my conclusion, and it would be a perfectly fair 
conclusion for anybody who wanted to draw that conclusion. 

Senator Smith. In other words, the Communists of North Korea, 
when they saw that announcement of Mr. Acheson, that was tanta- 
mount to saying, "We aren't going to defend South Korea"; was it 
not? 

Mr. Lattimore. The Communists, or anybody else, could read that 
the United States had said this was outside the defense perimeter. 

Senator Smith. That meant they were not going to defend it ; did 
it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That presumably implied 

Senator Smith. Was it not what you and everybody else would 
understand from that language? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, is that the conclusion that you 
drew? 

Mr. Lattimore. The conclusion I drew is that if a position is con- 
sidered untenable, then it is wise not to try to defend it. 

Senator Ferguson. I asked you whether you drew the conclusion 
that the United States Government had announced a policy, and 
therefore would not defend Korea ? 

Senator O'Conor. Your knowledge, in other words, of the attitude 
of the Government in that respect. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I must confess that one thing that did 
not enter my mind at that time was the North Korean armed aggres- 
sion — marching into a country to conquer it by force of arms and 
forcibly change the system of government. If it is put on the ques- 
tion not of supporting the South Korean Government, but of resist- 
ing external armed aggression, I should have said. "Certainly; we 
should resist external armed aggression in Korea or anywhere else 
in the world." 

Senator Ferguson. You felt that we should let them penetrate it 
and take it over, and not do anything about it ? 



3032 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. It is always difficult, Senator, even so recently as 
3 or 4 years ago, to maintain that you can recall verbally exactly what 
you thought at the time. 

Senator Ferguson. You wrote an article advocating something, and 
we have read it to you. 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that my anticipation at the time, based 
on the political news that was coming out of Korea, was that the 
South Korean Government was going to be changed from inside by 
the discontent against Syngman Rhee that was already evident, and 
that a different kind of government was going to come on the top. 

Senator Ferguson. That would be a Communist government ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not necessarily, no. 

Senator Ferguson. Would it have had Communists in it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, you were writing as a foreign expert ; and, 
Mr. Lattimore, you knew that this article was going to be distributed 
throughout the world, and it was for that purpose, was it not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, may I speak to your use of the word "ex- 
pert"'? I notice that it was worked very successfully on Mr. John 
Carter Vincent when he was here. I would like to point out that 
"expert" is only a relative tenn. Experts are not infallible. If ex- 
perts were infallible, we would not have any ; we would have a series 
of numbers on a telephone, and you would just dial and find out what 
is going to happen. Experts differ from each other, and among 
each other. 

My feeling at the time was that we had considered that Korea was 
untenable; that the Government, as it stood at that time, was going to 
fall ; and that this would probably lead to some form of amalgamated 
government between North and South Korea, which we had always 
stated was our policy. And I must say that I still hoped at that time 
that a modified government would be possible that would not be en- 
tirely dominated by the Korean Communists. 

Senator Ferguson. Wlien you say here, "Let South Korea fall," 
you meant more, did you not, Mr. Lattimore, than just the Govern- 
ment changing by a vote ? South Korea was to fall and not the Gov- 
ernment ; and therefore, the only way it would fall would be to arms, 
is that not correct ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, not necessarily correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, I ask you whether this article was not 
circulated throughout the world ? 

Mr. Latttmore. I wish I could say that anything I ever wrote. Sen- 
ator, was circulated throughout the world. I am not such a fan- 
tastically popular author as all of that. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you say that Russia, Communist 

Senator Smith. What does that mean. Overseas News Agency ? 

Senator Ferguson. It was to be distributed outside the United 
States, was it not ? 

Mr. Latitmore. I believe they sold, or tried to sell, their service 
abroad, just as AP and UP and other services do. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, now do you not think it is a fair inter- 
pretation of your remarks here that you, Owen Lattimore, were telling 
the world that the thing to do for America, therefore, was to let South 
Korea fall, but not to let it look as though we pushed it, and it was an 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3033 

invitation that America would not intervene in case they attempted 
to make it fall? 

Mr. Lattimore. The answer to that, Senator, is "No," with quali- 
fications, if I may. 

Senator Ferguson. All right, qualify it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I was telling the world what it already knew: 
That the United States was considering that Korea lay outside our 
defense perimeter, and was untenable. In that situation, I thought 
that the South Korean Government was bound to fall, and that there 
would take place an amalgamation beween North Korea and South 
Korea, under circumstances obviously disadvantageous to us, but we 
had faced that fact by saying that the position was untenable. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, did you not also indicate to the 
public and say to the public that we had done the identical thing in 
relation to China : That we had let it fall ? "The thing to do, there- 
fore, is to let South Korea fall," and you had stated bef oi-e : "Korea 
is another chapter in the same unhappy story." And right about that 
you say that we in effect allowed Chiang to fall, but we also made it 
look as if we did not push him. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I answer that question "No," with quali- 
fications? 

Senator Ferguson. All right, give your qualifications. 

Mr. Lattimore. China had fallen primarily because China was also 
a situation that we could not control. When we could not control it, 
we began to withdraw our support, but in fairness to the still existing 
Chinese Government we w^ere, I think, honorably careful to make it 
clear that the fall of China was not due to our pushing it over, as was 
being said by either ill-informed or ill-intentioned critics. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, you did use the same language, did you 
not, and I will read it to you : 

As a compromise, American policy tooli a course of relative inaction, but 
not complete inaction. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 
Senator Ferguson (reading) : 

As it became more and more obvious that Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang 
u'ere doomed, the conduct of American jwlicy became increasingly delicate. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 
Senator Ferguson (reading) : 

The problem was — 

and now you are saying our Government — 

The problem was how to allow them to fall without making it look as if the 
United States had pushed them. Such a policy never succeeds completely, and 
critics have done their best to make the public believe that the United States 
did push Chiang and the Kuomintang over the cliff. 

In other words, you say that the State Department was not able 
to put it over, as far as the public was concerned, that we did not push 
them ; and then you seem to criticize some people for bringing it out 
to the public that we really did push them, is that not a fact ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My answer to your exposition of what you think I 
said, Senator, is "No," with qualifications. 

Senator Ferguson. All right, qualify it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it is fairly obvious that the language used 
in that syndicated article was sardonic language. 



3034 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. I assume you made it that way so that the public 
would understand it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I thought it was understandable, Senator, and 
I was not writing for purposes of being obscure. 

Senator O'Conor. Just continue with your explanation, Mr. Latti- 
more. 

j\Ir. Lattimore. I was sardonically describing a situation in which 
a course of withdrawal had become, in the opinion of those who were 
directing our policy, inevitable because the situation had become un- 
tenable. A policy of withdrawal is always full of pitfalls, as far 
as public opinion is concerned. Misunderstanding is very easy, and 
very natural, and manipulation of that misunderstanding for polit- 
ical purposes is always tempting. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever know that there were some of 
the nations in the United Nations that advocated that after we started 
the war in Korea, it would be a good thing if we could be pushed out 
gracefully ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir, Senator ; I don't think I know that. 

Senator Ferguson. You never heard that ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. That would be along the same line of allowing 
it to fall but not let the public know 

Mr. Laitimore. Senator 

Senator Ferguson. Would it not? 

Mr. Lattimore. The war in Korea began in 1950, after a date 
at which I have been forced to neglect a great part of what should be 
my professional activity in keeping abreast of the details of news in 
the Far East because of the continuing malicious attacks to which 
I have been subjected, and so I cannot claim to be as well informed as 
perhaps I should be. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of questions. 

Mr. Lattimore, this Overseas News Agency is the one that distrib- 
uted this article, and did they ever distribute other articles by you? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir ; they distributed other articles. 

Senator Smith. How was that Overseas News Agency set up, and 
who were the personnel there that managed it, and who did you deal 
with ? Those questions I would like to have answered. 

Mr. Lattimore. The Overseas News Agency is a small syndicate 
in New York, and I was approached by somebody working for that 
agency at the time that I was leaving the Government service, and I 
am sorry I don't recall his name, asking me if I would be willing 
to write an occasional column of comment on the Far East; and I 
think that I began writing for them occasionally in 1945, and con- 
tinued until 1948 or 1949, 1 think it was 1949, when their finances were 
somewhat in difficulty, and they could no longer afford to pay me 
and, in fact, they still owe me a certain amount of money ; and I ceased 
writing for them. 

Senator Sisiith. Was Mr. Thackrey, the editor and publisher, the 
man who talked to you? 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge. Senator, I must say 
I have never met Mr. Thackrey, and I don't know him, and to the best 
of my knowledge he lias nothing to do with the agency. 
Senator Smith. And how about Mr. Gold ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3035 

Mr. Latti3iore. Are you reading from the letterhead of the 
company ? 

Senator Smith. Yes. 

JSIr. Lattimore. I never heard of Mr. Gold in connection with the 
Overseas News Agency. The head of Overseas Agency when I was 
writing for it was Mr. Jacob Landau, who has since retired ; and who 
is the head of the agency now, I don't know. 

Senator Smith. Well, now, where did you understand that news 
agency circulated its articles? 

Mr. Lattimore. It circulated its articles wherever it could sell them, 
as far as I know, and let me see if I can recall some of the papers in 
which articles of mine written for Overseas News Agency have been 
published. One would be the New York Herald Tribune ; one is the 
New Republic; one is the Watertown Times of New York; and one 
is a small paper in Connecticut, something like Watertown ; and the 
New Haven Register, I think ; and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ; and 
the Baltimore Sun. 

Senator Smith. How about foreign papers? 

Mr. Lattimore. The Louisville Courier. Papers abroad, I don't 
remember ever receiving any clips on that it was published. 

Senator Smith. You do not know about any of the other foreign 
papers ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sure you could get the record from Overseas 
News Agency. 

Senator Smith. When you were approached for an article to be 
sent out. were you given or was it suggested to you the subject that 
they wished you to write on? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Smith. You chose the subject? Did you write it and sell 
it to them, that is what I am getting at ? 

]Mr. Lattimore. To use the celebrated phrase. Senator, I wrote as I 
pleased. 

Senator Smith. Then how did you write ; with a view to selling, or 
did you first make arrangements for them to buy the article before you 
wrote it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. What is that ? 

Senator Smith. Did you write the article and then attempt to sell 
it to whoever would buy, this agency, or did you write as a result of 
their arrangement witli you to write an article? 

Mr. Latiimore. Their arrangement Avith me was at one time that 
I should write an article — the arrangement was at first that I should 
write once a week, and later that I should write twice a week, and 
later I believe once again that I should write once a week. 

Senator Smith. But you chose your own subjects? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith. And in this particular case, you chose as a subject 
of your article. "South Korea — Another China," and is that not true? 
Is tliat not the name of the article, the subject of the article? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the name that is printed there, but I may 
point out that I did not write the titles. Different papers published 
my articles under their own headlines. 

Senator Smith. You do not think that you chose the name, then, 
"South Korea — Another China"? 



3036 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe so ; no. I think that I usually sent 
by article in to the agency with a heading of some kind on it, but it 
very rarely appeared with the same headline in the different papers in 
which it was published. 

Senator O'Coxor. All right. 

Senator Watkins. I would like to ask one question. 

The last paragraph in that article, about South Korea and China, I 
am not clear as to whether you have said that that was not an expression 
of your opinion, or merely a quote of other opinion. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is my attempt at a summation of Washing-ton 
opinion. 

Senator Watkins. You did not mean that to be your own opinion? 

Mr. Lattimore. I meant that to be a summation of Washington 
opinion. 

Senator Watkins. Well, you could answer whether you meant it to 
be your own opinion or not. 

Senator O'Conor. Was it similar to yours, or at variance with yours ? 

Seiiator Watkins. Was that your opinion ? Let us get it. 

Mr. Lattimore. On the whole, I supported the policy. 

Senator Watkins. On the whole ; and that included, of course, this 
paragraph ? 

Mr. LAT'riMORE. If I had been critical of the policy, I should have so 
stated it. 

Senator O'Conor. Now, Mr. Lattimore, will you resume, and it 
occurs to me that this is one connected link, up to the top of page 24, 
if you might go on from where you left off reading, if we could just 
withhold any questions until you have reached that point. 

Mr. Lattimore. There are three interpretations that have been 
made of the records of the State Department victims of the China 
Lobby : 

1. That they sincerely and objectively reported the facts as they saw 
them at the time. In a reasonable climate, this would, of course, be 
the presumption- and although my knowledge is necessarily limited, 
I am sure that it is the fact. 

2. That they are Communists and subservient to a foreign power. 
On the evidence that I have seen in your hearings and the newspapers, 
this is a contemptible and baseless charge. 

3. That there existed in this country, and particularly in the Foreign 
Service of the State Department, a web of men who were attempting 
to serve a Communist cause, that I was a part of this web, and that 
the Government officials were either conscious parts of it or dupes. 

Senator Smith. Just a moment, there. 

Senator O'Conor. Will you withhold questions until he finishes the 
top of the next page, if that does not interfere with your questioning? 

Senator Smith. All right. 

Mr. Lattimore. The central problem of this subcommittee, Senators, 
is to decide between these three alternatives. I am concerned directly 
in this problem as it touches State Department officials only because of 
the third possibility; only because Joseph McCarthy and some of 
McCarthy's fellow travelers have attempted to use me as a tool with 
which to discredit the men who have had much to do with determining 
our far-eastern policy. 

Let us take a look— an honest look— at this preposterous theory of a 
secret spider web with me at the center of it. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3037 

First and foremost, my acquaintance with State Department officials 
can best be described as sporadic. I met some of them in China. 
Foreigners living in the small foreign communities of China saw each 
other frequently, and my wife and I were on friendly terms with them 
there. But it is also important that you recognize the limitations of 
our acquaintanceship with them and other Foreign Service personnel. 
When they were transferred to other posts we lost touch with each 
other, and when we again found ourselves in the same city, we were 
glad to see each other, but we seldom corresponded with them, or they 
with us. 

As for my acquaintance with these men and other State Department 
people in Washington, I must again remind you that the people in this 
country engaged in far-eastern research are very few. For profes- 
sional reasons, they need to see a good deal of each other. I have 
always circulated among far-eastern people in the State Department 
less than most academic specialists on the Far East, because my princi- 
pal research interest is the frontier regions between China and Kussia, 
especially Mongolia, and Mongolia has never been considered impor- 
tant in American foreign policy. 

Parenthetically, I consider that the neglect of the Chinese-Russian 
frontier in American studies is a serious mistake. The lack of such 
studies makes it difficult to coordinate the study of American interests 
and policies in the Far East, Central Asia, and the Middle East. I 
have done my best to promote such studies and the Johns Hopkins 
University is now the leading university in the country in the teaching 
of contemporary spoken Mongol and research on the Mongol area. 

Senator Jenner. May I ask a question ? 

Senator O'Conor. I clid promise Senator Smith, who had attempted 
to ask a question before, that he could interrogate the witness. 

Senator Smith. You are using an expression that I have been hear- 
ing off and on ever since I have been here, for the last year and a half, 
and you say "victims of the China lobby." And I have never yet been 
able to get anybody to identify the China lobby. Who are the person- 
nel of the lobby, now, would you mind telling me, not only for past 
understanding but also for future guidance? Who are the China 
lobby? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, your question follows on from a question 
asked me by Senator Ferguson a moment ago. However, I will do my 
best to amplify it. 

As I say, I believe it is a rather amorphous body, an open conspiracy 
rather than a tight membership organization. I believe that one might 
say that it consists partly of professional or amateur lobbyists in the 
usual sense; that it has mercenaries, and that it also has occasional 
allies, sort of guerrilla troops skirmishing around the fringe; and, 
therefore, if one names any one person, that person might not be a 
member of the China lobby in exactly the same sense as another person. 
But I should say that one of the conspicuous members of the China 
lobby is a Mr. William Goodwin, who is or has been actually employed 
and registered as a lobbyist for the Chinese Embassy here. There is 
the well known Mr. Alfred Kohlberg, who is a man of private means 
and able to finance his interests in the discussion of China policy, and 
he also has or had financial interests in China. And I believe that some 
Senators may be considered to be part of the China lobby, or occasional 
allies of the China lobby. 

88348— 52— pt. 9 10 



3038 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Knowland, for instance, whom I consider to be an absolutely- 
sincere man, is frequently referred to as the "Senator from Formosa." 

Senator Ferguson. That is a Communist line, is it not, "the Senator 
from Formosa," Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not to my knowledge, Senator. They may have 
picked it up. 

Senator Ferguson. You have never heard that the Communist line 
is to call the Senator from California, "the Senator from Formosa"? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I have never heard that, and it may be true, 
and of course, I don't follow the Communist press. 

Senator Smith. Go ahead and give us some more names, because I 
am interested in identifying this China lobby. 

Mr. Lattimore. And then the China lobby 

Senator Smith. Right there, before we leave Senator Knowland, 
because I have a very high regard for Senator Knowdand, you do not 
mean that he has been a member of the China lobby working in a 
sinister way against the interests of America in behalf of China, 
do you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, Senator, I just expressed or stated my opinion 
that I have a high regard for Senator Knowland and consider him 
an absolutely sincere man, and that is why I prefaced my remarks by 
saying that when one man may be named as part of the China lobby, 
he is not necessarily the same as another man. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, when you referred to the Sen- 
ator from California as "the Senator from Formosa," you were not 
treating him with respect, were you? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator 

Senator Ferguson. If you were repeating hearsay. You come in 
here and you charge people with blackening your character, and then 
you use an expression on this stand against a Senator as the "Senator 
from Formosa." 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I should 

Senator Ferguson. Now, I said yesterday that you could say any- 
thing you wanted to on the end of an answer, which you have been 
continuously doing, about all of the Senators on this committee ; but 
when you bring in another Senator and charge him with being in the 
China lobby, and refer to him as "the Senator from Formosa," I 
think that you should be called to order. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry, Senator. You may call me to order if 
you like. I was merely 

Senator Ferguson. And you cannot gloss it over with a glib tongue 
as to what you feel about him. 

Mr. Lattimore. I considered that I was merely citing an extremely 
well-known and partly humorous description of him that appears in 
the press and on the radio. 

Senator O'Conor. It would seem in order, Mr. Lattimore, I agree, 
that the reference was uncalled for, and it was not becoming, and 
it should not have been made. He is a highly respected and honored 
official, and an}^ sort of reference to that is belittling, and certainly 
it does not have any part in a serious discussion or consideration such 
as that in which we are engaged. And if, as you are now indicating, 
it was made a semihumorous way, that, too, has no part in this 
proceeding. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3039 

Senator Jenner. Miglit I add there that any man who stands up 
for America is to be belittled by such men. 

Senator O 'Conor. There will be no demonstration of either ap- 
proval or disapproval. 

Senator Smith. Maj'be this will help a little bit to clear it up, Mr. 
Lattimore. On page 22 of your statement you state or you say that 
"there are three interpretations that have been made of the records 
of the State Department victim of the China lobby." 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Smith. And so you regard those State Department people 
that you referred to as "victims," for instance, of Senator Knowland 
as one of the China lobby? Do you or do you not refer to Senator 
Knowland as one of the people who has made a victim of some of the 
State Department people ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I answer "No," with qualifications ? 

Senator Smith. All right. 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge, as I recall, from the 
press, I do not believe that Senator Knowland has joined in this kind 
of clamor, and that is one of the reasons that I respect him. 

May I advert to a remark made by your chairman? I was called 
upon to describe the China lobby, as I understand it, and I very care- 
fully specified that there were many different kinds of people in it, 
and that the characterization of one was not necessarily applied to 
another. Then I thought that it would be the proper, thing for me, 
since I believe that in the public mind a number of Senators and Repre- 
sentatives are associated with the China lobby, not to show any atti- 
tude of fear or cringing by avoiding the mention of the names of 
eminent men. I therefore deliberately chose the name of Senator 
Knowland because I thought that he was a man whom I could men- 
tion in a very respectful manner as showing that I have a difference 
of opinion with him, but that I respect him, but that I consider that 
his position represents one part of what this China lobby is. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, you are in a sense departing from 
the point made by the temporary presiding officer. I made no objec- 
tion to your naming Senator Knowland, but I did think that you did 
go too far in describing him as representing other than the United 
States of America, which I am sure he represents alone, and will not 
be influenced by any foreign allegiance. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry, Senator. Perhaps I should have left 
that to the press. 

Senator Ferguson. What do you mean ? 

Senator Smith. You mean you have an arrangement with someone 
on the press to characterize these men, and you should have left that 
to the press ? What did you mean by that statement ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. "^I simply meant that this is a term under 
which Senator Knowland is frequently referred to, and I might have 
assumed that if I had only mentioned Senator Knowland, that the 
press, as they often do when they are identif;ydng people, would have 
put in brackets that Senator Knowland has been referred to as the 
"Senator from Formosa." 

Senator Jenner. In what press have you read that Senator Know- 
land was the "Senator from Formosa"? 

Senator Smith. The Communist press? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. I never follow the Communist press. 



3040 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Jenner. I want an answer to my question, and I want to 
know in what press the witness has read that Senator Knowland is re- 
ferred to as the "Senator from Formosa"? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry, Senator, I can't name offhand a spe- 
cific paper in which I read it. 

Senator Jenner. Not one, not even one newspaper ? 

Senator Smith. And yet you make that statement ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a term that I have been reading for months, 
and also hearing on the radio. 

Senator Jenner. What papers do you read, then? Maybe we can 
get at it that way ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I read regularly the New York Times and the 
Baltimore 

Senator Jenner. Has the New York Times, to refresh your mem- 
ory, ever referred to Senator Knowland as the "Senator from For- 
mosa" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. Senator. It would have to be looked 
up. 

Senator Jenner. You make this charge and yet you cannot name 
one paper that referred to Senator Knowland as the "Senator from. 
Formosa" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't name — I can tell you the papers I read. 

Senator Jenner. But you do not recall any single newspaper ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I cannot recall. 

Senator Jenner. You thought it was a humorous reference, and yet 
you did not get any humor and you cannot remember the humor that 
you got from reading some newspapers ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, it is a very frequent reference — so fre- 
quent that I would not associate it with any newspaper. 

Senator Jenner. Do you read the Daily Worker ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you read the Compass ? 

Senator Jenner. What paper do you read besides the New York; 
Times? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was trying to tell you when you interrupted me. 

Senator Jenner. Please do, with qualifications. 

Mr. Lattimore. I read the New York Times regularly and I read 
the Baltimore Morning Sun regularly and I read the Washington 
Post regularly and those are the only ones I read regularly. 

Senator Jenner. Thank you. 

Mr. Lattimore. Since I have characterized this also as a term that 
appears on the radio, the radio programs to which I listen regu- 
larly 

Senator Jenner. Now, maybe some commentator. What commen- 
tator have you heard who referred to it? 

Mr. Lattimore. The 6 o'clock news broadcast of the CBS in the 
evening. 

Senator Jenner. Can you name one commentator, then, among all 
of your news broadcasts that you have listened to, who referred to 
the Senator from California as the "Senator from Formosa"? 

Senator O'Conor. The witness should be allowed to answer. 

Senator Jenner. He answered on the newspapers and now this is 
a new question and I am asking what commentators. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3041 

Senator O'Conor. I think that is in order, but the witness ought to 
Tje permitted to complete his answer. 

Senator Jenner. He had completed the newspapers and switched 
over to radio news broadcasts. 

Senator O'Conor. Now, the question is as to what radio broadcasts 
you customarily listen to, and the commentators. 

Mr. Lattimore. The programs and commentators to which I cus- 
tomarily listen are the 6 o'clock CBS news program in the evening 
which includes a number of commentators or news broadcasters ; and 
I listen to the 8 o'clock CBS news in the morning ; and then going back 
to the evening, I occasionally listen at 7 o'clock to Fulton Lewis, Jr. 

Senator Jenner. Did you ever hear Fulton Lewis, Jr., refer to the 
Senator from California as the "Senator from Formosa" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't recall. 

Senator Jenner. Can you recall any commentator on any of the 
news broadcasts 

Senator O'Conor. I do think, now — had you finished your answer? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had not. 

Senator O'Conor. I think that you should finish it. 

Mr. Lattimore. At 7 : 15 I usually listen to Elmer Davis. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever hear Elmer Davis say that? 

Senator O'Conor. I think- 

Mr. Lattimore, I think, I wouldn't say for certain, I think it is 
quite likely. 

Senator Ferguson. I would think so. 

Senator O'Conor. Let us be in order. 

Mr. Lattimore. At 7 : 45, I usually listen to Mr. Ed Murrow's pro- 
gram, again on CBS. And that is all of the programs I listen to regu- 
larly and the papers that I read regularly. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Can you give this witness a rest, please ? 

Senator O'Conor."^ We will take a recess for 10 minutes. 

Senator Ferguson. I think he needs a rest. The record clearly 
sliows he needs a rest. 

Senator O'Conor. We will take a recess for 10 minutes. 

(Short recess.) 

(At this point Senator McCarran assumed the chair.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Is there any question pending ? 

Senator Smith. I asked Mr. Lattimore to name the persons who 
constituted the China lobby and he named three or four, and I would 
like to get the additional names of those he regards first as to the China 
lobby. 

The Chairman. You may answer, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I tried to begin my answer with great 
care 

The Chairman. Let us name the Senators who belong to the China 
lobby, is that the question ? 

Senator Smith. The persons who constituted the China lobby, and 
among them he named one Senator, and I would like to have him name 
the others, because he said or he referred to the State Department vic- 
tims of the China lobby, and I want to know who constitutes the China 
lobbj'-, the personnel, and the names. 

The Chairman. That calls for names, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. All right. Senator. 



3042 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Before naming any further names- 



The Chairman. That calls for names, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I'll mention any further names only with 
great reluctance 

The Chairman. Your statement in that regard will be stricken 
from the record. Name the names. That is what the answer is. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am naming these names with the greatest reluc- 
tance. 

The Chairman. That is stricken from the record. Call the names. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have characterized people as being 

The Chairman. Call the names, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. In the lobb}' as being different 

The Chairman. Do you want to answer the question or don't you ? 

Mr. Lattimore, Senator, before 

The Chairman. I ask you to answer the question now. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, yes, I will answer the question. 

The Chairman. Your other statements will be stricken from the 
record, and you are called upon to name names, and now do so. 

Mr. Lattimore. Very respectfully, Senator, you are 

The Chairman. Let's name the names and answer the question of 
the Senator from North Carolina. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I have mentioned Mr. Alfred Kohlberg. 
I understand that an employee of the China lobby has been a Miss 
Freda Utley. I understand that there is a great deal of private 
Chinese money in this country 

Senator Smith. Now, that does not answer my question. 

The CnAiitMAN. The last part of the answer will be stricken from 
the record. 

Senator Smith. He says, "State Department victims of the China 
lobby." Now, "victim" is not a very nice designation of someone who 
has been the victim, and I want to know who are the China lobby? 

The Chairman. You are calling for names. 

Now, names is what your answer is. 

Mr. Lattimore. I understand that, Mr. 

The Chairman. Your answer calls for names, please, Mr. Latti- 
more, and certainly you 

Mr. Lattimore. Members of the Chinese Embass3^ And that is all 
of the names that I will name. 

The Chairman. Any further questions, Senator? 

Senator Smith. So that those names are the names of the persons 
who constitute the China lobby — and I see you are getting reinforce- 
ment from your wife behind you. Now, I am asking you to name the 
names of the persons that constitute the China lobby, and you have 
given us three or four. Noav, are they all that constitute the China 
lobby? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I speak to my counsel. 

Senator Smith. I am asking you for the names. 

The Chairman. You can answer that question "yes" or "no." 

Mr. Lattimore. I have been told. Senator 

The Chairman. Will you please answer the question? Never 
mind what you have been told. Answer the question "yes" or "no," 
and then explain, i^^ you wish. 

Mr. Fortas. The witness has asked permission to consult with 
counsel. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3043 

The Chairman. If he wants to consult with counsel, he may con- 
sult. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Now may he? 

The Chairman. He certainly may. I have told you that. 

Mr. FoRTAS, Thank you. 

The Chairman. He is not going to get fortification from the rear. 

Senator Smith. That has been going on all morning, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

The Chairman. That is going to stop. 

I will have to ask for quiet in the rear of the room, please. 

What is your question, Senator Smith ? 

Senator Smith. I asked him to name the names of the persons con- 
stituting the China lobby to which he refers here in his statement 
on page 22. 

Mr. Lattimore. I should name Mr. George Sokolsky, a newspaper 
columnist, and I believe radio commentator. I should name the 
Chicago Tribune 



*to^ 



Senator Smith. Wliat names, individually ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Editorially. 

Senator Smith. Who ? The persons, I called for, the names of the 
persons constituting the China lobby as referred to by you on page 22 
of your statement. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I, Senator, again refer to the fact that I started 
out by saying that I consider that any individual may be classified 
with the China lobby in entirely different degrees and under entirely 
different connotations. 

Senator Smith. Any kind of degree. Mr. Lattimore, you have 
made a serious charge here, that the State Department employees have 
been made victims of the China lobby. Now, that is a statement 
you have made, manifestly for the purpose of prejudicing somebody. 
Now, I want to know who constitutes this China lobby that you 
apparently mean to say has been guilty of all sorts of insidious influ- 
ence on the State Department. Now, who are the persons ? Now, if 
you did not know any persons who constituted the lobby, manifestly 
this is an improper statement to put before the committee. If you 
do know who constitutes the China lobby, you are entitled to tell us ; 
and that is all I am asking for, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That calls for names, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. I should name a Mr. Victor Laskey 

Senator Watkins. Tell us where he lives, if you have that infor- 
mation. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know where he lives, sir. I have seen ar- 
ticles of his. I think that that is all I can recall at the moment, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Senator Smith. The persons you have named are the persons to 
whom you attribute the influence that produced the State Department 
victims ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Those are all of the names that I can recall under 
this kind of hammering, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I think that that is 
uncalled for, to Senator Smith's question, and I think it ought to be 
stricken from the record, the remark that he has been hammered. He 
has had a recess to remember names. Certainly to request a man 



3044 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

over and over, when he refuses to answer and fails to answer, to get 
names of an organization, I do not think that that ought to be classed 
by any witness before this committee as "hammering." 

The Chairman. I entirely agree with you. Senator. The remark 
will be stricken from the record. I hope that that will not occur 
again. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, I think — and, of course, I have 
no objection how he refers to the questions I ask him, because I cer- 
tainly started in this hearing with not any feeling against Mr. Lat- 
timore whatsoever, and I am going to maintain my composure, and my 
effort in fairness, regardless of his truculence and his petulance or his 
arrogance, and I expect to continue listening to what the evidence is. 
But when such flimsy statements as this are m^^e, and then he cannot 
back it up, I think it is something that we should consider as to 
whether or not we should throw this whole statement of his out, and 
then proceed by way of direct question and direct answer from Mr. 
Lattimore, because we have seen this whole statement is full of such 
jumbled statements as that, that are not backed up; and when you 
specifically inquire as to the foundation for his statement 

Senator Ferguson. May I just say in relation to that, that is the 
reason this hearing is taking so long. If we were to admit these gen- 
eralizations, such as the one about the China lobby and the fact that 
the State Department is a victim of the China lobby, and many other 
statements that have been shown to be hearsay, and not founded upon 
fact, then we would be admitting the truth of all of these statements 
and these conclusions. That is the difficulty that we are facing here, 
with a long cross-examination to try to ascertain what the facts are, 
and what this man actually knows. It is unfair to a record. 

Senator Smith. I think what he says is a reflection upon the State 
Department and upon the people who are honestly trying to operate 
the State Department in the best manner, and for him to characterize 
these four or five people as the people who have made victims of State 
Department employees. But that is all I have to say. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Ferguson. I had one other question that I wanted to ask 
the witness. He refers to Senator Knowland as the "Senator from 
Formosa," and have you ever seen an editorial entitled, "Senator from 
Formosa" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I remember, no. 

Senator Ferguson. You think that you might have? 

Mr. Latitmore. No, I don't think that I have. 

Senator Ferguson. You realize that when you say that a Senator 
is from a foreign land, that it is a serious charge against the Senator ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should think that that would vary with the cir- 
cumstances, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. If you felt that he was, then it would not be a 
serious charge? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should feel that it varies according to whether 
the name or the term is applied humorously or hostilely, et cetera. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think to accuse a man of being a Senator 
from a foreign country is humorous or could be humorous ? 

The Chairman. When it is made under oath ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; in a serious investigation. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3045 

Mr, Lattimore. Senator, I did not call him that under oath. I 



referred to the fact 

The Chairman. You did call him that under oath, because you are 
under oath all of the time here, Mr. Lattimore, and so anything you 
have said is under oath, and your counsel will so advise you. 

Mr. Lattimore. I referred to him in quotations, not as my charac- 
terization. 

Senator Ferguson. And I said on this record, I gave you a question, 
that that was the Cominunist line. Now, I will ask you again : Did 
you ever see it in an editorial, "Senator from Formosa"? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I can remember. 

Senator Ferguson. To back up what I said about it being the Com- 
munist line, I want to show you that editorial and ask you whether 
you ever saw it? Don't read the slip on it; I turned it down. 

Mr. Lattimore. I haven't read the slip. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. I know you didn't, because I asked you not to, 
but read the editorial, and I will ask you if you ever saw it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should like to ask that when I am shown written 
material — — 

The Chairman. You can answer that "Yes" or "No." 

Mr. Lattimore. That I be allowed to see the whole thing. 

Senator Ferguson. I want you to read the editorial. 

The Chairman. That calls for a categorical answer, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. This I never saw. 

Senator Ferguson. Now look at the slip. 

Mr. Lattimore. "San Francisco, Calif. — Peoples World." 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know that that is a Communist sheet? 

Mr. Lat'timore. I believe that was stated at the Tydings hearings 
a couple of years ago, and I don't know the paper myself. 

Senator Ferguson. You learned, then, in the Tydings committee 
that that was a Communist sheet ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I heard that it was stated that it was a Communist 
sheet. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, they end the editorial by saying, refer- 
ring to the Senator from California, "the Senator from Formosa"; 
and in another place they use it as "Senator from Formosa" ; and the 
title is "Senator from Formosa." And they say : "Knowland has been 
the Senator from Formosa rather than from California anyway." 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I have already said that I do not read 
the Communist press. 

Senator Ferguson. I will introduce that into the record to prove 
that it is the Communist line of referring to a distinguished Senator 
from this body as the Senator from a foreign land, Formosa. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 

(The editorial referred to was marked "Exhibit 467," and is read 
in full below by Senator Ferguson :) 

Senator Fkom Formosa 

Democratic leaders at their recent State executive committee meeting vied 
for the dubious honor of controlling a pro-Truman delegation to their party's 
national convention. 

But they did not pay the slightest attention to selecting a candidate to run 
for United States Senate and to preparing a major campaign to defeat Senator 
William F. Knowland, the GOP incumbent. 



2046 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

It is an open secret that the Democratic leadership ha« g^ven no real opposi- 
tion Governor Warren for years. It is also a fact that most ot tne party s 
bosses did not try too hard to boat Senator Richard Nixon in 1950 
'Xv they seem to be preparing only a token <^^-f^f ?^fi?^Sfo,r^urPa?ty 
And there could be no clearer measure of the bankruptcy ^f the Democratic Farty 
leadership in California than its complacency in permitting a State with a 
great pro^gressive tradition to be represented by two of the worst and most 

'TnowHndTa^s beeS\hl"senator from Formosa rather than from California 
«nvw.^v His nrimarv concern seems to have been representing Chiang Kai-shek 
fnCsen?Sl£ has been a major advocate of an all-out United States war 
again'st CWna, a^d has been prepared to expend millions of American lives to 
restore the corrupt Chiang regime to power. ^ ^ ... •„ -cr^ >,aa 

Knowland has flagrantly misrepresented the people of Calif ornia. He hag 
hPPn for everv reactionary and repressive measure such as the Taft-Hartley 
and iScairan IcS And he has been against price control and rent control 
nnd pvpn the most modest social-security measures. 

And he can^e defeated. He can be swept out of office in a wave of revulsion 
ag^ntt Ws war poSs and his flagrant advocacy of vested interests m tho 

^Zt'one thing is sure. That job can't be left to the DemocraUc Party an^^^^ 
the committee it has picked to survey candidates. It is a .lob f?r laboi, for toe 
Negro people, for the masses of people who want Knowland defeated. We 
belfeve tSciO, AFL, and independent unions should take the lead in ooinmg 
forces behind a strong progressive candidate who will not be a dummy for 
Knotvland, who will really go out to win, who will really repi;esent the people^ 
and will really realize the potential of mass opposition to the Senator from 
Formosa. 

Mr. Lattimork. Mr. Chairman, mav T answer? 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask a question. . ^ ^i ^ 

Mr. Lattimore. May [ ask that the record show at this ponit that 
I repeat that I do not read the Communist press? 

]Mr. SouRwiNE. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr Lattimore, earlier, over a space of some 30 or 3o minutes, there 
was discussion of what was referred to at some times as a recommenda- 
tion with regard to the United States getting out of Formosa. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. -, . , ^i 4. • j. 

Mr SouRWiNE. I want to be sure the record is clear on that point. 
Is the point you were attempting to make that you merely, during that 
period in 19 i9, referred to what you found or felt to be the opinion m 
Washington, and that you were not yourself recommending to the 
State Department that the United States get out of Formosa i 

Mr. Lattimore. Not completely, Mr. Sourwme. 

Mr. SoURWiNE. Would you clarify that, please? Did you recom- 
mend to the State Department that the United States get out ot 

Formosa? . , --i. • t i 

Mr Lattimore. At the time that this article was written, m July 
of 1949, I was reflecting State Department opinion. By the end ot 
1949 I had accepted that opinion as the established policy. 

The Chairman. What is the question, please ? 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. That calls for a categorical answer, and I want 
the answer "yes" or "no," and then you may explain afterward. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I say "yes," with amplification ? 

The Chairman. You may explain your "yes" after you say it, or 
"no" after you say it. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

The Chairman. All right. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3047 

Mr, Lattimore. At the end of 1949, in a memorandum that I wrote 
preparatory to a conference that was called by the Department of 
State in, I believe, November of 1949, as I recall, there was a para- 
graph saying that we should liquidate our position in Formosa as rap- 
idly as possible, or words to that effect. 

Mr, SouRwiNE. Is that the only occasion on which you recommended 
to the State Department that we get out of Formosa ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the only one I recall, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you regard Formosa as an undesirable form 
of gover]iment, a monarchist form of government, which was not 
worthy of our support? 

Mr, Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever say so ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It was not a monarchist form of government, Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever say so ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That it was a monarchist 

The Chairman. Did you ever say so ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am just asking for clarification of the question. 

Did I ever say that South Korea was a monarchist form of govern- 
ment ? 

Mr. Sourwine. I am talking about Korea, Senators. 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't believe I could have ever said that 
Korea was a monarchist form of government. 

Mr. Sourwine. And just to make the record clear, it is Korea we 
are talking about when I asked you if you recommended that the State 
Department get out of it ; was that your understanding ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. And you say that you did so recommend in some- 
thing that you wrote in November of 1949 ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I wrote it in November of 1949, that was 
the date. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, you have here today on several occasions used 
language which sounded as though you intended to convey the im- 
pression that you had not made such a recommendation to the State 
Department. Did you at tlie time intend to convey that recommenda- 
tion to the committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. At that time I intended to convey that impression 
only with regard to that particular newspaper article. 

_ Mr. SoiTrwine. You weren't expanding the answer beyond the spe- 
cific question that was asked you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was not intending to ; no. 

Mr. Sourwine. And if you conveyed a broader impression, that was 
not your intention ? 

IVIr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, did you sir, attend a conference at the State 
Department on far eastern policy in October of 1949 ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I will accept your date, Mr. Sourwine. I thought it 
was November, but it may have been October. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you take part in that conference orally ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did. 



3048 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you, in the course of that conference, say : 

* * * I think we ought to give a little more attention to the problem of 
Korea. Korea appears to be of such minor importance that it tends to get over- 
looked by Korea may turn out to be a country that has more effect upon the 
situation than its apparent weight would indicate. 

I don't know how it can be done but I should feel very much easier about the 
prospects of success of American policy in the Far East as a whole if we can 
proceed or arrange our new relationship with Japan, whatever it turns out to be, 
by disengaging ourselves as far as possible from southern Korea. 

It has been widely stated, and I don't know if it is true, but it may be open to 
criticism — that Korea is not a decisive strategic position. Certainly on the 
political side Korea is likely to be an increasing embarrassment. Southern 
Korea unfortunately is an extremely unsavory police state. The chief power 
is concentrated in the hands of the people who were the collaborators of Japan 
and therefore Korea represents something which does not exist in Manchuria 
and North China ; namely, if the Chinese are willing to trade with Japan it is 
because they no longer fear that trade with Japan means Japanese strategic 
control. 

Southern Korea, under the present regime, could not resume closer economic 
relations with Japan without a complete reinfiltration of the old Japanese 
control and associations. 

Korea is a danger to us in other respects. I think that throughout Asia the 
potential democracies — people who would like to be democratic if they could are 
more numerous and important than the actual democrats. The kind of regime 
that exists in southern Korea is a terrible discouragement to would-be democrats 
throughout Asia who would like to become democrats by association with the 
United States. Korea stands as a terrible warning of what can happen. 

Did you say that, sir ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I said that ; and may I ask if that is the full 
text of what I said on the subject of Korea ? 

(A printed document was handed to the witness.) 

Mr, SouRAVTNE. If there is any additional portion that you would 
like to have inserted in the record, preceding that or following that, 
I will ask that the chairman insert it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am merely asking, because I can't recall offliand 
whether I reverted to the subject of Korea later in the discussion. 

Mr. Sourwine. This is in our record in full, sir, and if you will 
notice, I was reading from page 1677 of volume 5 of our hearings, 
which is the official State Department transcript of these conferences. 
The whole thing is in the record, and the record will show, as you will 
find if you examine it, that you adverted to the subject of Korea. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right, and I just wanted to make sure 
whether that was the only occasion on which I adverted to it. My 
wife has here, I think, a separate transcript of everything that I said 
at the conference, and it would be easier to check in that ; and may I 
ask permission to check that ? 

Mr. SouR^\^NE. If there is anything that the witness cares to offer 
later on in connection with that, the Chair can rule on it at that time. 

The Chairman. I think so. We will go on now. 

Mr. Lattimore. As far as this particular reference goes, Mr. Sour- 
wine, that is certainly what I said, and I stand by it. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. Mr. Lattimore, I just would like to clarify one 
minor point in the record. At the bottom of page 20, you made a ref- 
erence to Mr. John Stewart Service, Mr. O. Edmund Clubb, and Mr. 
John Carter Vincent, and you compared them with Mr. George Ken- 
nan ; and I want to ask you if you really mean that any of those three 
men could adequately fill the same relative position with respect to 
the Far East that Mr. Kennan fills with respect to Russia? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 304 i) 

Mr. Lattimore. May I recall the original wording, "would have 
heen capable of holding"? I will amplify that to say "capable of 
developing into that kind of man." With that amplification ; yes, I 
believe that, 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You refuse to accept it the way I stated it, Mr. 
Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattlmore. Would you repeat the way you stated it? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I will try. 

The Chairman. The reporter will read it. 

Mr, Sourwine. I wonder if there was something in the w^ay that 
I stated it that you rejected. 

(The question referred to was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Lattimore. I will accept that. I would prefer to state things 
in my own words. 

Senator Ferguson, Mi^ht I inquire there, Mr. Chairman ? 

After the Loyalty Review Board of the President has found rea- 
sonable doubt as to Mr. Service, and you read the opinion, do you 
still say that that is a correct statement ? 

Mr, Lattimore, I still say that that is a correct statement. Senator, 
and I return to my characterization yesterday of the wording of that 
"reasonable doubt" ruling as an undesirable one for the handling of 
Government personnel. 

Senator Ferguson, For that reason, you place no credence in the 
Board's finding, is that correct, because you do not believe in the 
principle upon which it is based ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I say "No," and then qualify it ? 

Senator Ferguson, Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't. I think that it is extremely detrimental 
to the morale of Government personnel when a man is subjected to 
repeated jeopardy, and after many specific clearances is finally got rid 
of under a new and vague wording. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever accepted the conviction of Alger 
Hiss as being a proper conviction ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I have. I also accept his attempt to get a 
fresh trial as a proper procedure mider American law. 

Senator Ferguson. And have you ever expressed any objection to 
the Smith Act, the one under which the 11 Communists were con- 
victed ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry — first, no, I have not expressed any 
objection to it. I should add that I have never read it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Might I inquire, Mr, Chairman? 

Mr. Lattimore, going to page 23 of your statement, you will recall 
that you had discussed three interpretations of what you said were the 
"records of the State Department victims of the China lobby," and 
then you talked of the central problem of the subcommittee ; and then 
you said : 

Let us take a look, an honest look, at this preposterous theory of a secret spider 
web with me at the center of it. 

Now, before I ask this question, I want to lay a foundation by asking 
you, do you know what I mean when I refer to the "referent" for a 
pronoun ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry; no. 



3050 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. If you use the pronoun "he," and then I say, "What 
is the referent for that pronoun," I mean who were you referring to 
when you said "he." 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, may we use it in that sense in connection with 
the question I am about to ask? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. liight in tlie next sentence you wrote, and had mime- 
ographed : 

First and foremost, my acquaintance with those State Department officials can 
best be described as sporadic. 

Who did you mean by "those"? What is the referrent for "those"? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I corrected this text. 

Mr. Sourwine. I understand tliat, but you had "those" originally, 
and that is wliat you luid mimeographed ; and I want to know what 
you mean by "those"? 

Mr. Lattimore. I meant originally my acquaintance with State De- 
partment officials. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. What State Department officials ? 

Mr. Lattimore. With State Department officials. 

Mr. Sourwine. You said "those," and now I want the referent for 
"those." 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I meant, when I wrote it, to refer to mj 
acquaintances with State Department officials. 

Mr. Sourwine. What State Department officials? 

Mr. Lattimore. Then I read "those" 

The Chairman, Now, that calls for the names of the officials, that 
is the question : What State Department officials ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I meant State Department officials in general with 
whom I was acquainted. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is obviously untrue, Mr. Lattimore, because 
the context of your own statement shows that you differentiate be- 
tween these men and other State Department people. Now, I want 
to find the referent in your own statement with regard to "those." 
Do you go back or were you referring to men who were in the so- 
called secret spider web, or do you go further back to the paragraph 
above it and find "men who have had much to do with determining 
our far eastern policy," or do you go still further back to find the 
referent for "those"? Obviously it must appear before the use of 
the pronoun. 

Mr. Lattimore. My intention was to refer to State Department in 
general, as people in general; on page 22, for example, "the State 
Department victims of the China lobby." 

Then after I had written it, I saw that the word "those" would 
easily be interpreted as meaning a reference only to three men, and 
I therefore, in order to carry out my intention, struck the word 
"those." 

Mr. Sourwine. How did you mean it, sir, when you originally 
wrote it? Did you intend it as a reference to a particular group of 
men ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I intended it as a reference to the whole far eastern 
group. 

Mr. Souravine. What do you mean by the "far-eastern group"? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3051 

Mr. Lattimore. I mean those in the Department of State primarily 
trained as far-eastern experts, especially China experts. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Are yon telling this committee that you did not 
have a particular group of men in mind when you said "those" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the particular group that I had in mind. 

Mr. Sourwine. You mean all of the State Department people who 
were trained in the far-eastern affairs? 

Mr. Latiimore. That is the general group I meant. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. But in the next sentence, sir, you wrote : "I met all 
of them first in China", didn't you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is why I changed it. 

Mr. Sourwine. You have changed it, but isn't that what you orig- 
inally wrote? 

Mr. Lattimore. Because I realized that some of the China group 
that I had met, China group of the State Department that I had met, 
I had not met first in China, and therefore I changed the wording to 
make it inclusive. 

Mr. SouRvriNE. Mr. Lattimore, didn't you, when you first wrote 
this, have in mind a particular group of State Department officials^ 
and wasn't that a group of State Department officials all of whom you 
had first met in China? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, let us go down a little farther 

Mr. Lattimore. May I amplify that? 

The Chairman. I think that you have gone into that before the 
question was propounded to you, and I think that that is far enough, 
I hope, Mr. Lattimore, that you might obey the decorum of this com- 
mittee, and when you are cut off by the chairman of the committee^ 
tliat is the end of your statement, and your statement is on file in 
this committee, and you are under oath. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, pursuing Mr. Sourwine's question 
just a bit, I would like to call attention to the fact that in the same 
paragraph there is further evidence by language which seems to me 
to substantiate the contention made b}' Mr. Sourwine, and I call your 
attention to the statement : 

Foreigners living in the small foreign communities of China saw each other 
frequently — 

NoAv, that is not the whole State Department. It is those in China. 

* * * and my wife and I were on friendly terms with them there. But it is 
also important that you recognize the limitations of our acquaintanceship with 
them and other Foreign Service personnel. 

Evidently he is referring to some particular group in China, and 
then he adds, "and other Foreign Service personnel." Then — 

''When they were transferred" — that is "they," and not the whole 
Foreign Service — "Avere transferred to other posts we lost touch with 
each other * * *." 

Now, who does he mean ? 

"* * * when we again found ourselves in the same city" — which 
apparently he did — "we were glad to see each other, but we seldom 
corresponded with them, or they with us." 

I submit the comment that it certainly bears out the contention of 
Mr. Sourwine. Those were not changed in the paragraph, and I read 
them just as they are in tliere now. 



3052 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. When we get down to that question, may I inquire 
whether you made those changes on the advice of counsel ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I did not. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Now, in the next paragraph, sir, you say : 

"As for my acquaintance with these men * * * " 

Were you referring to certain men? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was referring to the general group of those 
working on China particularly. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You didn't mean the same men that you referred 
to in the paragraph above vv^hen you wrote "those"? 

Mr. Lattimore. I meant in the paragraph above, when I wrote 
"those," the same that I meant in the paragraph below : The general 
group of people working in China, some of whom I met first in China, 
and some of whom I met first elsewhere, although they were China 
service people. 

Mr. Sourwine. You say that the referent for those various pro- 
nouns is not the phrase in the second paragraph above, that is, the 
first paragraph from the top of page 23, "the men who have had much 
to do with determining our far-eastern policy"? 

Mr. Lattimore. It would certainly include them. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, let us go back to the paragraph at the bottom 
of page 22 : " * * * a web of men who were attempting to serve a 
Communist cause * * * " Is that a referent for the "those" and 
"these" and the "them" ? 

Mr. Lati^imore. It would include them, and others. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Let the witness con- 
tinue the reading. 

The Chairman. He may continue the reading. 

Mr. Lattimore. Aside from these social contacts, my Government 
experience has been limited and my contacts with anything that could 
be called policy making (or attempts to influence policy) extremely 
rare. The record was fully brought out in the hearings before the 
Tydings subcommittee, and is as follows : 

1. In 1941 and 1942 I was personal political adviser to Chiang 
Kai-shek. This was on the nomination of President Roosevelt; but 
I was in the personal service of Chiang Kai-shek; not of the Chinese 
Government : not of Mr. Roosevelt ; not of the American Government. 

I Avas, in effect, charged with liaison functions between Chiang Kai- 
shek and the White House. My first appointment, in Jul}^ 1941, was 
for 6 months. I was then reappointed, to serve indefinitely. When 
I resigned at the end of 1942 to enter a war job in this country, Chiang 
graciously asked me to consider myself on "reverse lend-lease," and 
to return to his service at any time. 

In February 1942, I returned to this country for several months 
during which Chiang asked me to familiarize myself with the han- 
dling in Washington of American aid to China, During this time 
my liaison with the White House, on Roosevelt's instructions, was 
through Mr. Lauchlin Currie, an assistant to the President. I lived 
in Baltimore but came over to Washington several days a week and 
Mr. Currie offered me the use of an office adjacent to his. 

The big problem at this time was to get supplies to China for use 
in the war against Japan, and on Chiang's instructions I was in com- 
munication both with Mr. Currie, who was handling this matter for 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3053 

the President, and with officials of the various Chinese missions in 
Washington. 

It was apparently these circumstances that formed the basis for 
the charge — as if there was some sinister signijQcance in it — that I 
had "a desk in the State Department," from which the inference has 
been made that I influenced the State Department. Currie's office, and 
other "V^liite House executive offices, were in the building which also 
housed the State Department and the Bureau of the Budget. I con- 
fess I did not think of this when the charge was originally made. The 
fact of the matter is that the State Department were quite resentful 
of Roosevelt's use of his executive assistants, like Currie, to provide 
personal channels through which Chiang communicated with Roose- 
velt, and this resentment extended to me. Consequently, I doubt if I 
would have been very welcome in the State Department during this 
period. 

2. In 1943 I was Deputy Director of the Overseas Branch of the 
Office of War Information in charge of Pacific operations. As the 
title implies, I was responsible for operations, not policy. In 1944 
I came to Washington, still with the same title, and during that year 
I Avent out to Australia, to set up OWI operations under General Mac- 
Arthur. You will recall that General ThorjDe, MadArthur's chief of 
Counterintelligence, testified before the Ty dings committee (trans- 
cript, p. 1215) that he thoroughly investigated me in connection with 
this mission, and found nothing subversive in my record. In fact, 
he was kind enough to say, "Were I called on to commit my personal 
safety and that of my command on information supplied by Dr. 
Lattimore, I would do so with confidence that he would always act as 
a loyal American citizen." I submit as an exhibit the statement made 
to the Tydings committee by General Thorpe in 1950. 

May i submit that, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. This offer will be withheld until the Chair can go 
over it. 

Mr. Lattimore. In the same year, 1944, as a representative of OWI, 
I accompanied Vice President Wallace on his mission in Siberia and 
China. In the fall of that year, I returned to my university work, 
eoming to Washington only 1 or 2 days a week, as a consultant to OWI. 

I have been accused by Budenz of exerting a Communist influence 
on the Vice President of the United States when I accompanied him 
on his mission to Siberia and China. This barefaced accusation has 
"been so effectively disproved by the testimony of Mr. Wallace and of 
Mr. Alsop that it is unnecessary for me to repeat their evidence here. 
Mr. Wallace in his recent letter to the President also confirmed the 
fact that I did not act — or, indeed, attempt to act — as his political 
adviser on the mission in question. 

3. In the winter of 1945-46 I spent between 3 and 4 months in Japan 
with the Pauley mission, which was making a survey of American rep- 
arations policy in Japan. Using my connection with this mission as 
a springboard, a whole new series of accusations have been parroted 
here concerning ideas I am supposed to have advocated concerning 
Japan. 

Mr. Dooman, Mr. McGovern, and the always obliging Budenz have 
stated, and your questions to other witnesses have inferred, that I rec- 
ommended a policy of deindustrializing Japan — a policy which they 
in chorus labeled as Communist. Mr. Dooman, Mr. ]McGovern, Mr. 

8S348— 52— pt. 9 11 



3054 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Colegrove, and your counsel, Mr. Morris, have also, in cliorus, dis- 
torted some ideas which I expressed before the end of the war con- 
cerning the Japanese Emperor. 

It is a most interesting coincidence, if one could call it that, that 
whereas McCarthy's charges of my subversive influence on Govern- 
ment policy, based on Alfred Kohlberg and dutifully echoed by Louis 
Budenz, were concerned almost solely with our China policy, this new 
note was suddenly sounded by no less than four of your witnesses — 
that my policy recommendations on Japan were also sinister. Even 
the phrases used by the four men were similar. Mr. Dooman claimed 
that the Pauley report, which I had written, "provided for turning 
Japan into a pasture." Mr. McGovern testified that it was my policy 
to have "a bloody peace in Japan" ; "to completely reduce Japan to 
vagary and impotence"; "to reduce Japan back to an agricultural 
country and destroy all Japanese industry." To have Budenz join this 
chorus is most surprising of all because in 1950 he testified about me 
for a whole day and never even mentioned my ideas about Japan, But 
before this committee he obligingly came through and stated that I 
had aided the "Communist conspiracy" for a "hard peace in Japan." 

All of these statements are false. Now I do not want to appear to 
subscribe to the charge that anybody who advocated such a policy is 
a Communist. But the fact is "that neither the Pauley mission nor I 
personally ever advocated the deindustrialization of Japan. When I 
was in Japan with the Pauley mission at the end of 1945 I did play 
a major part in drafting a reparations report, in close conference with 
Mr. Pauley and based on the assessments of the technical members of 
the mission, working with data supplied by General MacArthur's 
headquarters. This report was anything but a punitive document 
and could not possibly be described as aiming at a "bloody peace." 
It supports none of these ridiculous yarns. Its principal recommenda- 
tions were to use the surplus war industry of Japan as reparations to 
aid the industrialization of countries in Asia that had been 
plundered by Japan ; to prevent Japan from controlling the economic 
life of Asia ; and to leave Japan enough industry to provide for trade 
and the purchase of necessary imports. 

Even before the end of the war, when hatred of Japan was at its 
height, I wrote in Solution in Asia, 1945, page 184 : 

We must avoid confusing industrial demilitarization with disindustrialization. 
In a Japan deprived of all industry, people would starve by the million * * * 
we do not hate them to the point of starving several millions of them. Japan 
must be left with some industry. 

Neither Solution in Asia nor the Pauley report is a classified docu- 
ment. They clearly show that whoever steered Mr. Dooman, Mr. Cole- 
grove, Mr. "McGovern, and Mr. Budenz to brand these recommenda- 
tions as Communist was far, far off the beam and completely lacking 
in scruple. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore has referred to this Solution in 
Asia, and I recall testimony in this record — and I do not know whether 
the witness has seen it — of an FBI agent here before this committee, 
and I wonder whether we could have that so that it would appear here? 
Do you have that? 

Mr. Morris. Yes -I have it. 

The Chairman. Very well, you may proceed, Mr. Lattimore. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3055 

Senator Ferguson. Just a moment. I would like to refer to this 

testimony. 

Mr. Morris. We have it, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to have it go in the record at this 
point. Have the clerk read it, and identify the witness. 

Mr. Mandel. This is the testimony of Harvey M. Matusow, in ex- 
ecutive session, before this committee on February 13, 1952. 

The Chairman. Who was he or what was he ? 

Mr. Mandel. He gives his career as follows in the testimony: 

I joined the Communist Party in October of 1947. A year preceding that I 
joined the ATD, American Youth for Democracy, Communist Party youth. 

Mr. Morris. He joined the Communist Party on behalf of the Fed- 
eral Bureau of Investigation ; isn't that right, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. I am reading in sequence, and I haven't come to that 
jet: 

In 1948 I worked in full-time employment of the Jefferson School, in the 
Jefferson School book shop. 

Further : 

In Marcli of 1949, I became a full-time employee of the Communist Party 
of New York City, worked at the county headquarters 

Mr. Fortas. Is he reading the transcript ? 
Senator Ferguson. Yes. 
Mr. Fortas. He seems to be skipping about. 

Mr. Morris. Was not Mr. Matusow at that time an employee of 
the FBI? 

Mr. Mandel. On page 6 of this testimony it says : 

In the summer of 1950, I went to New Mexico, to Taos, N. Mex., and at that 
time I had contacted the FBI, and was furnishing information to them and 
still in the party, and furnishing information to them in relation to party activ- 
ities near Los Alamos, at Taos, N. Mex. 

Senator Ferguson. At one time he was in the employ of the FBI, 
as an agent? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. What does he say about the Solution in Asia, 
as far as the Communists are concerned? 

Mr. Mandel. It says: 

Mr. Mandel. Mr. Matusow, we are primarily interested in the Institute of 
Pacific Relations and matters pertaining to the Far East in connection with 
the Communist Party. 

In the course of your activities, did you ever handle any literature of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Matusow. Yes. In 1948, when I worked at the Jefferson School book 
shop, and during the periods of 1949 when I worked at the book shop on Sunday 
nights to supply literature to the various lecturers they had on their lecture 
program I handled certain material put out by the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Mandel. Was this pamphlet one of those pieces of literature that you 
handled? 

Mr. Matusow. That is correct. Our Job in the Pacific, by Henry A. Wallace. 

Mr. Mandel. Who published that pamphlet? 

Mr. Matusow. The Institute of Pacific Relations, American Council. 

Mr. Mandel. How did you handle that pamphlet? 

Then there is further discussion dealing with the pamphlet. 
Senator Ferguson. Can you get down to the other one ? 
Mr. Mandel. Yes. 



3056 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Mandei,. Did the book shop ever promote any of the publications of 
Owen Lattimore? 

Mr. Matusow. Yes ; it did. 

Mr. Mandel. Will you tell us about that? 

Mr. Matusow. The books Solution in Asia, by Owen Lattimore', published by 
Little Brown & Co. 

Mr. Mandel. What year? 

Mr. Matusow. 1945 — it was one of the books used in the book shop and sug- 
gested reading for a background on the party line, the Communist Party line, 
in Asia. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Chair may wish to 
order tliis entire record phiced in the record at this point. 

Senator Ferguson. I move it be placed in tlie record, but I wanted 
to have Mr. Lattimore know what was being said in this record about 
his book. 

Tlie Chairman. Is it your motion that this entire record be in- 
cluded ? 

Senator Ferguson. This witness' testimony be included in this 
record. 

The Chairman. Without objection, that will be the order. 

(The testimony referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 469," and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 469 

INTERNAL SECURITY 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal 
Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, of the 

Committee on the Judiciary, 
Washington, D. C, Wednesday, February 13, 1952. 

executive session — confidential 

Ths subcommittee met at 11 : 15 a. m., pursuant to notice, in room 457, Senate 
Office Building, Senator V. Watkins presiding. 
Present : Senator Watkins. 

Also present : Benjamin Mandel, Director of Research. 
Senator Watkins. The subcommittee will come to order. You may proceed. 

Testimony of Hakvey M. Matusow, 1308 Grand Avenue, Dayton 6, Ohio 

(Resumed) 

Ml". Mandel. Will you give your name and address? 

Mr. Matusow. Harvey M. Matusow, 1308 Grand Avenue, Dayton 6, Ohio. 

Mr. Mandel. You have been previously sworn? 

Mr. Matusow. That is correct. 

Mr. Mandel. Will you give very briefly your career in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Matusow. I joined the Communist Party in October of 1947. A year 
preceding that I joined the AYD, American Youth for Democracy, Communist 
Party youth organization. 

In 1948. I worked in full time employment of the Jefferson School in the 
Jefferson Book Shop. 

Mr. Mandel. That is the Jefferson School of Social Science? 

Mr. Matusow. That is correct, at 575 6th Avenue, in New York City. 

In September of 1948 I became a full time employee of People's Sings, Inc., a 
cultural organization of the Communist Pai'ty at the time. 

Mr. Mandel. Whore were they located? 

Mr. Matusow. 126 West 21st Street. 

Mi-. IMandel. Why do you say it was a cultural organization of the Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr. Matusow. Every or,t,^anizer and full time employee of that organization 
were members of the Communist Party 

Mr. Mandbx. To your knowledge? 



INSTITUTE or PACIFIC RELATIONS 3057 

Mr. Mattjsow. To my knowledge. I attended meetings with them as Com- 
munists. 

Mr. Mandel. Will you proceed with your other experiences in the Commu- 
nist Party? 

Mr. Matusow. While at People's Songs, I worked on a national scale with 
the Progressive Party in their 1948 election campaign. 

During this time I was also an organizer in the Communist youth movement 
in New York County. 

In March of 1949 I became a full time employee of the Communist Party of 
New York City, worked at the county headquarters. 

Mr. Mandel. Where were the county headquarters? 

Mr. Matusow. 35 East 12th Street. 

Mr. Mandel. Who was your superior? 

Mr. Matusow. George Blake Charney. 

Mr. Mandel. Does that complete your experience in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Matusow. No, it does not. In May of 1949, under Communist instruc- 
tions, I went to Puerto Rico, spent three weeks in Puerto Rico. 

Mr. Mandel. Did you go to Puerto Rico under the auspices of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Matusow. That is correct. 

Mr. Mandel. You were paid by the Communist Party? 

Mr. Matusow. That is correct. 

Mr. Mandel. And you did not go under some other committee or other 
auspices? 

Mr. Matusow. No, the Communist Party of New York County and New York 
State, both. 

Mr. Mandel. Will you describe briefly your trip to Porto Rico, what you did 
there, and who accompanied you? 

Mr. Matusow. Ted Bassett, who was then New York County Educational Di- 
rector for tlie Communist Party, accompanied me to Porto Rico. 

When we got to Puerto Rico, we met in closed party meetings with Caesar 
Andreau, who was then General Secretary of the Porto Rican Communist Party ; 
Juan Santo Rivers, who was Chairman of the Porto Rican Communisty Party. 
We also met with Juan Sias Corales, Trade Union Secretary for the Commu- 
nist Party of Porto Rico and General Secretary of the Communist union there, 
either the CGT or UGT. A check will bear out which one it is. 

His wife, Consuelo Sias Corales was Educational Director of the Communist 
Party at Puerto Rico ; also Jane Speed Andreau, the wife of Caesar Andreau. She 
had been a Communist Party organizer in Alabama and had attended Commu- 
nist leadership schools in New York. 

Mr. Mandel. Will you go on with your activities? 

Mr. Matusow. We were instructed to set up a Communist Party newspaper 
in Porto Rico or furnish the funds for the setting up of this newspaper. 

Mr. Mandel. Did you take funds with you? 

Mr. Matusow. No ; but we brought information down as to where the funds 
could be gotten or how they could be gotten. 

Mr. Mandel. Did you know the details of that? 

Mr. Matusow. Yes. Well, basically the funds would be gotten when the 
paper was ready for publication and the funds were needed, a Communist or- 
ganizer would go from New York to Porto Rico with a bank draft or the cash 
necessary. 

Mr. Mandel. That was the arrangement you told the Porto Rican Communist 
leaders? 

Mr. Matusow. Correct. Now, we also had the question of getting a Porto 
Rican delegate to the World Youth Festival to be held in Budapest, Hungary, 
in 1949. 

Eugene Cubues, the Communist youth leader of Porto Rico, was selected. 

I was instructed to tell him that he was to apply for a passport to go to France, 
Italy, and England. I was instructed to tell him to apply for the passport to go 
to eastern European countries as a tourist. But before I left, I received all of 
the necessary information, photographs and life history, to obtain a visa for him 
to go to Hungary. 

I turned that information over to the Communist Party oflSce in New York. 

Mr. Mandel. Whom did you turn it over to? 

Mr. Matusow. To actually the American Youth for a Free World, at 144 
RIeecker Street. 

Mr. Mandel. To what individual did you turn it over? 



3058 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Matusow. To Lou Diskin, who at that time was C^'^JX^^^nd^'wiU^Siuc" 
for New York State, the youth movement in New ^^^J^ State and ^^lthanstruc 

tions for Cubues to pick up his visa for Hungary m P«"^' ^f^^^.^f.^^'^^^^anaged 
In the summer of 1949 I was a full time employee of (^'^mP Unity- ^ ^"^"^^ed 
the Communist Party book shop at that camp, Camp Unity Wingdale, %ew Yoi k^ 
In tlTe fall of 1949 that is, from September to December, I was a full time 
employee of th'eWot-kers Book Shop at is East l^th Street in N^^^^^^ I then 

carried out party assignments and was working m I.^^^^^ Communist Lab^r^Y^^^^ 
T^nmiP IS nt that time State Literature Director ot the Labor \outli league. 

In thrsVSimer of W50 I went to New Mexico, to Taos, New Mexico and at 
thn? time I hSl contacted the F. B. I. and was furnishing information to them, 
and sun in ihe party furnishing information to them in relation to party ac- 

"^{fMl^^^^^SJl^wr^e^ pSSily in^rested in the L^Utu^ of 
Pacific R™ons and matters pertaining to the Far East in connection with the 

"^TnX'com-se'o'f your activities, did you ever handle any literature of the In- 

''Mr^Vi^Sw' ?'s''lnM48, when I worked at the Jefferson School book shop 
and duHne the peSs of 1949 when I worked at the book shop on Sunday nights 
totmX literature to the various lecturers they had on their lecture programs, 
I hanSed certain material put out by the Institute of Pacific Rf ations^ 
Mr. MANDEL. Was this pamphlet one of those pieces of literature that you 

^""Si^ MATTTSOW. That is correct, Our Job in the Pacific by Henry A. Wallace. 
Mr Mandel. Who published that pamphlet? , r.^„„«n 

Mr MATUSOW. The Institute of Pacific Kelations, American Council. 
Mr MANDEi. How did you handle that pamphlet? 

Mr Matusow That was displayed at the book shop, and when people who 
were aUenXg the Jefferson Scliool, or party members whom I knew to be such 
iy.miired nbout material, background material, on Asia, and mainly relating to 
SriommunTst ?evoUition in Asia taking place in China, the Communis s versus 
the NaUonalists, I was instructed to suggest certain readings. This Our Job m 
the Pacific was one of those suggested readings. 

Mr. Mandel. Who suggested it to you? TDoii;«,r^,. RafnrP that it 

Mr Matusow The manager of the book shop, Sid Ballinger Before that, it 

wa^ R Jth NeTthe wife of Jim Nesi, who works for the Committee for a Demo- 

^Mr' m!L1" Win you Sate as far as you remember what your instructions were 

"rT^^TSow^' W^^^ was one of the many books iised-I will 

say that, that this was", as I say, part of the backgroiinc ^/ferml that yo^^^ 
give a Communist or somebody interested in the sub.iect of the Communist 1 arty 
V Pwnoint on the Pacific or the China question, the Asmtic question ^ _ „ 

S IvCdel Did the bo^ shop ever promote any of the publications of Owen 

Lattimore? 

Mr. Matusow. Yes, it did. 

Mr SIandel. Win you tell us about that? ^ ,^. , n i,„j v,,, 

Mr". Matusow. The book Solution in Asia, by Owen Lattimore, published by 

Little Brown & Co. 

Z- u'SZi^^'lU^nL. one Of the bo,*, ».ed In tie book shop and ,ug^ 
Bested reading for a background on the party line, the Communist Party line, in 

'^ lZ7t^:'it':.i:'l^^^^^^^^^ book shop, .id there 

%^rTngCs"lSod?rfs1id. the war in China, the Communist -volution m 
China, was taking place, and many people professed a great interest i" that and 
the party, the Communist Party Une, as disseminated, had "Ot caught up with 
the tide of events we might say. The party had been caught for a while flat- 
Sote^fn the term's^? t"e^actual literature put out by the Communist Party, in- 

^"Thi'nS w?r?m?^^?g too fast for them. The State Education Committee got 
together and decided which books would be good background material, and which 
supported the Communist Party line. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3059 

They came out with a decision that Solution in Asia was one of those books 
which could give a Communist I'arty member a correct line, a Communist line, on 
the Asiatic situation in China and China specifically. 

JMr. Mandel. Did the book shop also promote the works of Israel Epstein? 

Mr. Matusqw. Yes. One book in specific was The Unfinished Revolution in 
China. Besides promoting the books of Israel Epstein, he was a lecturer at the 
Jefferson School on the question of China. 

Mr. Mandel. Did it promote the works of Lawrence K. Rossinger? 

Mr. Matusow. I don't recall the name. May I go back on one point of Israel 
Epstein? When I worked at the Jefferson School, I was informed by David 
Ooldway, who was then the Executive Secretary or Director of the Jefferson 
School, or held a leading position at the school, that nobody works at the Jefferson 
School and there are no lecturers on our programs who are not Communist Party 
members. 

Mr. Goldway is also a member of the New York State Educational Committee 
of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Mandel. How do you know that? 

Mr. Matusow. I attended the meetings, staff meetings, of the Jefferson School. 

As I say, I was a full-time employee, and when I was on the New York State 
Educational Committee of the Labor Youth League, I was on the Educational 
Committee of the Labor Youth League, and we worked closely with the Com- 
munist Party Education Committee in New York State, and I was told that 
Mr. Dave Goldway was a member of that Committee and had seen him at Com- 
munist Party headquarters when he was there to attend meetings of this New 
York Educational Committee. 

Mr. Mandel. What if anything do you know about the work of Frederick V, 
Field? 

Mr. Matusow. I was told there again, before my trip to Porto Rico, I should 
say, that I should prepare myself or I should get a good background of the Porto 
Rican question. 

Mr. Mandel. Who told you? 

Mr. Matusow. The Communist Party organizer in New York City, George 
Blake Charney, 

Before I went to Porto Rico they wanted to make sure I was well founded in 
the party line of Porto Rico. I asked where I might get the material needed 
for the study of the background on the part of the Porto Rico question, and I 
was informed that the Frederick Vanderbilt Field library on West 26th Street, 
the Frederick Vanderbilt Field library was the place to 50 to get the party line 
and the background material needed for Porto Rico. 

Mr. Mandel. Did you actually go to that library? 

Mr. Matusow. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Mandel. How long were you there? 

Mr. Matusow. I spent three or four afternoons and a few mornings there doing 
research on Porto Rico. 

Mr. Mandel. Did Frederick V. Field teach at the Jefferson School? 

Mr. Matusow. To my knowledge he lectured there, he did lecture there. I 
mean, I know that, but I can't say what specific lecture it was. 

Mr. Mandel. In what way did the name of Evans F. Carlson come to your 
knowledge? 

Mr. Matusow. When I was a member of the AYD, American Youth for De- 
mocracy, I picked up the official publication of the American Youth for Democracy, 
which at that time was the Communist Party Youth Organization in the United 
States, and on the back cover of this publication called Youth, a letter from 
Evans P. Carlson, a retired Brigadier General of the Marine Corps, was pub- 
lished, and it stated that he was proud and honored that his name had been 
chosen to name one of the AYD Clubs. 

It seemed that one of the AYD Clubs had written him asking him for permission 
to use his name. 

Mr. Mandel. Is there any way you can get us a copy of that? 

Mr. Matusow. I don't know what issue that would be. 

Mr. Mandel. What year would that be? 

Mr. IMatusow. It would be one of the 1046 or 1947 issues. 

I was also informed by people in the party literature set-up when the book 
The Big Yankee came out, which was the biography of Evans F. Carlson, before 
I sold that book, I mean in my capacity as a literature agent for the Communist 
Party, that it was highly recommended reading on the question of the Com- 
munists in Asia, and that General Carlson was a very close friend of Mao Tse- 



3060 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

tung', the party chairman and the head of the Communist Chinese Government. I 
was also told that General Carlson had heen to China and he had trained the 
remnants of the Eighth Kout Army, which was the Communist Army. That was 
before Pearl Harbor. 

Mr. Mandel. In what way did the name of Corliss Lament corpe to your at- 
tention? 

Mr. Matusow. Corliss Lamont had a number of articles published in a mag- 
azine called Science and Society. 

Mr. Mandel. What is the magazine? 

Mr. Matusow. It was a Marxist quarterly, I believe. It was put out by mem- 
bers of the Communist Party. It delved mostly into philosophical questions. 

Mr. Mandel. Was it considered a Communist publication by the Jeffei-son book 
sliop ? 

Mr. Matusow. That is correct. We also handle a book, and the title slips my 
mind right now, by Mr. Lamont, published by the Philosophical Library in 1949 
or 1950. dealing with Marxist philosophy. 

Mr. Mandel. In other words, the work of Corliss Lamont was promoted, the 
books of Corliss Lamont were promoted, by the Jefferson book shop? 

Mr. Matusow. That is correct, and also the Workers book shop. 

Mr. Mandel. In what way has the name of Chu Tong come to your attention? 

Mr. Matusow. He was editor of the China Daily News. 

Mr. Mandel. What was the official estimate of the China Daily News? 

Mr. Matusow. When Mr. Chu Tong lectured at the Jefferson School of Social 
Science on the question of China, I was informed before his lecture that he was 
a membor of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Mandel. Who informed you? 

Mr. Matusow. Dave Goldway, of the Jefferson School. I might add that the 
reason for this answer and the reason for my question was that I was to handle 
literature that was to be sold during his lecture. 

Lefore anybody lectured, I inquired about how far with the party line "can I 
go in selling the literature?" I mean, "would there be any objections on the 
part of the lecturer?" I was informed that he was a party member and that I 
could go all out in distributing party literature at his lecture. 

I was also told by the same person, and other people connected with the Daily 
Worker and the Communist Party State Office when I was employed there, that 
the China Daily News was the Chinese language version of the Daily Worker in 
that it disseminated the line so closely and did not deviate. 

Mr. Mandel. Did you remember who told you this? 

Mr. Matus;ow. Therfe again I go back to Mr. Dave Goldway. I go to Ben 
Bordofsky. 

Mr. Mandel. Who is he? 

Mr. Matusow. He is head of Wholesale Book Corporation, the Communist 
Party literature distributing house in uVew York and nationally, and on occasions 
when I had occasion to visit the offices of the Daily Worker and speak to certain 
people there, such as Allen Max, and offhand I can't think of some of the other 
names, and also Mr. James Nesi, a teacher at the Jefferson School and a lecturer 
for the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, he also told me that he 
took the China Daily News as a Communist party organ. 

Mr. IVIandel. Would you remember what year Chu Tong lectured at the Jeffer- 
son School, approximately? 

Mr. Matusow. 1949. 

Mr. Mandel. Have you anything more to say about Chu Tong or the China 
Daily News? 

Mr. Matusow. No ; I believe that completes that. 

Well, yes ; also one other person, if I might, a member of my club, the Tomp- 
kins Square Youth Club of the Communist Party, was a man named Lee York, 
or it could have been pronounced York Lee. I am not sure which was his first 
or last name. 

He was born in China. At the time he was about 24 years old. He had joined 
the Chinese Communist Party at tlie age of eleven in China. During the second 
World War he joined the American Army and claims to have become an Ameri- 
can citizen on the basis of that. 

He also referred to the China Daily News as a Communist Party organ, distrib- 
uted among the Chinese people in New York City. 

Mr. ]\Iandel. In conversation with you? 

Mr. Matusow. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mandel. What, if anything, do you know about Agnes Smedley? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3061 

Mr. Matusow. We distributed and sold books written by Agnes Smedley at 
the Jefferson School book shop and the Workers shop. 

Mr. Mandel. What, if anything, do you know about Edgar Snow? 

Mr. Matusow. His book, Red Star Over China, the party considered one of 
the most important books on the China question. 

Mr. Mandel. What, if anything, did you know about an organization known as 
A Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy? 

Mr. Matusow. I was informed by the Jefferson School, during the summer 
of 1948, through Dave Goldway, that a lecturer, namely, James Nesi, would 
appear at the summer camp for a period of one week to discuss China, and he 
would represent the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy. 

I know Mr. Nesi personally and knew him to be a member of the Communist 

Party. 

During that week when Mr. Nesi lectured, I was informed that the Committee 
for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy was a Pro-Communist group run by Com- 
munist party members. Their office was at 799 Broadway, in New York City. 

At a later date in 1949 I had visited their office on more than one occasion — 
and don't remember the names right now, but knew the people that stalled the 
office to be members of the Communist Party. 

Two of them in particular, who were secretaries or employees of that organi- 
zation, had attended Communist Party youth meetings which I attended. 

Mr. Mandel. Was 799 Broadway the headquarters of other Communist organi- 
zations? 

Mr. Matusow. Yes. One in particular where I worked, the Labor Youth 
League and the Labor Research Association was also at the offices of 799 
Broadway. 

Mr. Mandel. What if anything do you know about the Magazine Guild and 
its parent organization, the United Office and Professional Workers? 

"Mr. Matusow. I was a member of that organization and while 

Mr. Mandel. Just let me interrupt you, if you please. Of which organization? 

Mr. Matusow. The United Office and Professional Workers Union. 

Mr. Mandel. You were not a member of the Book and Magazine Guild? That 
which was affiliated with the United Office and Professional Workers? 

Mr. Matusow. I worked very closely with the organizers of that Book and 
Magazine Guild. 

Mr. Mandel. Will you tell us what you know of either the Book and Magazine 
Guild or the United Office and Professional Workers? 

Mr. Matusow. My contacts with the United Office and Professional Workers 
Union, of which the Book and Magazine Guild was part of, as a Communist 
Party member and a member in good standing of the United Office and Profes- 
sional Workers Union, was informed by the organizers of the United Office 
and Professional Workers Union, such as Winifred Norman, Norma Aaronson, 
Jack Greenspan, Aaron Kramer, Ethel Beach, and also by Communist Party 
organizers such as Norman Ross, that the United Office and Professional Workers 
Union was staffed, and full-time employees had to be, by members of the Com- 
munist Party. That included the Book and Magazine Guild. 

Mr. Mandel. Does the name of James S. Allen mean anything to you? 

Mr. INlATUSOW. Yes. James S. Allen was considered one of the party theoreti- 
cians on the questions of minority groups. 

I believe in 1937 he wrote a book called The Negro Question in the United 
States, which is being reprinted now by the Communist Party. 

He has written a number of pamphlets — I don't recall the titles of those 
pamphlets — and articles in magazines such as Political Affairs, and which was 
distributed by the Communist Party. 

Mr. Mandel. Were his pamphlets promoted by the Jefferson book shop? 

Mr. iMatusow. That is correct, and they were published by the Communist 
Party, International Publishers or New Century Publishers. 

Mr. Mandel. Was New Century Publishers an official Communist publishing 
organization? 

Mr. IMatusow. That is correct. 

Mr. Mandel. What does the name of Abraham Chapman mean to you? 

Mr. Matusow. The name is just familiar. I don't know him. 

Mr. Mandel. William Mandel? 

Mr. IMatusow. Mr. Mandel had lectured at Camp Unity in the summer of 1949 
imder the auspices of the Council for American-Soviet Friendship. And there 
again, at Camp Unity, I was informed by the State Literature Director of the 
Community Party, Ben Bordofsky, that all lecturers at camp this summer "will 



3062 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

be Communist Party members, and your literature distribution in relation to 
those lecturers will be accordingly." 

Mr. Mandel. Mildred Price? 

Mr. Matusow. I don't know the name. 

Mr Mandel. Thank you verv much, Mr. IMatusow, for your testimony today. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 53 a. m., Wednesday, February 13, 1952, the hearing was 
recessed subject to the call of the Chair.) 

Mr. FoRTAs. May we see it ? 

Mr. Morris. It is the testimonj^ of Mr. Matusow. 

Mr. FoRTAs. Could I read it at luncheon ; this record ? 

Senator Ferguson. That is all right. 

Did you ever know that your book was being used by the Commu- 
nists as a Communist line ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir; I didn't. I believe that record says that 
they used it for background reading. 

Senator Ferguson. Covering the Communist Ime, does it not say 

that? 

Mr. Lati'imore. It says they used it as background reading. 

Senator Ferguson. You heard what was read. 

Mr. Lattimore. As I heard it, they said they were using it for 
background reading. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know that the Communists were using 
your Solution in Asia as background reading? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I did not. _ • • 'ii. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not it was in line with 
the Communist line? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should say not. 

Senator Ferguson. Had you ever heard anyone, outside of this 
witness, saying that it was ? • • j. 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that parts of a Communist review of 
Solution in Asia were introduced into the record, but not the whole 

review. 

Senator Ferguson. This record makes this statement, and your 

counsel can check it at noon : 

Things are moving too fast for them. The State Education Committee got 
together and decided which books would be good background material, and 
which supported the Communist Party line. 

Now, did you ever know that your book was used by the Communist 
State Education Committee as supporting the party line ? 
Mr. Lattimore. No ; I did not. 
Senator Ferguson. And then at another place they say : 

They came out with a decision — 

meaning the Communist Party — 

that Solution in Asia was one of those books which could give a Communist 
Party member a correct line, a Communist line, on the Asiatic situation in China 
and China specifically. 

The Chairman. Your question is : Did he know that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did not know that. Might I amplify that? 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to have you amplify that you did 

not know it. 

Mr. Laitimore. I would understand that anybody who was study- 
ing the Far East at that time might read various books for background 
information, and anybody could use a book like that to twist to their 
own purposes, whatever those purposes were. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3063 

Senator Ferguson. Well, Mr. Lattimore, do you not think then that 
people may be justified in criticizing your book as following the Com- 
munist line when testimony before this committee from an employee, 
an FBI agent, has characterized it as having been adopted as carry- 
ing out the party line ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, Senator. And may I say a few words in addi- 
tion to that? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. That I do think that such an interpretation would 
be entirely unbalanced unless it were also entered into the record that 
many people of other points of view also used and commented favor- 
ably on Solution in Asia. 

Senator Ferguson. But you would not criticize people now for 
following what this witness has said under oath ; would you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would criticize anybody who took a single opin- 
ion on a book that was in the open market and was used, quoted, com- 
mented on by all kinds of people of the most diverse opinions. 

Senator Ferguson. Can you account for the reason that the Com- 
munists may have taken this book as background for the problems in 
Asia ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I can't. 

The Chairman. I think at this time, Mr. Chairman, we have 
reached a point where we can recess for lunch. 

Senator Smith. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ? 

On page 2 of this summary it is said, where he quoted : 

Things were moving too, fast for them. The State education committee got 
together and decided which books would be good background material, and 
which supported the Communist Party line. 

Now, I inquire as to whether or not there is anything in that record 
to indicate that this term, "the State education committee," refers to 
an official organization of the State, wherever it was, in New York, 
or is that the committee of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Morris. The antecedent paragi'aph shows that, I think. Senator. 

Senator Smith. I just wanted to be sure what it is referring to. 

Mr. Morris. It says:"* * * in the terms of the actual literature 
of the Communist Party," and "Things were moving too fast for 
them." 

Senator Smith. Is that referring to the State education committee 
of the Communist Party, or the State of New York, or what ? 

Mr. Morris. Of the Communist party. 

The Chairman. I think we have reached a point where we can re- 
cess now for the noon recess, and we wiU reconvene at 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12: 55 p. m. the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m. 
of the same day.) 

after recess 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, so that there can be no confusion 
in the record as to the witness Harvey M. Matusow, I want to read 
in relation to his identification with the FBI from the record : 

In the summer of 1950, I went to New Mexico, to Taos, N. Mex., and at that 
time I had contacted the FBI and was furnishing information to them, and still 
in the party, furnishing information to them in relation to the party activities 
near Los Alamos, Taos, N. Mex. 



3064 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. FoRTAs. May the record show that that is the only passage in 
the transcript that refers to this connection with the FBI ? 

Senator I^'erguson. That is right. 

Mr. FoRTAS. And may the record also show that I agree that certain 
parts of the transcript will be deleted? 

Senator Ferguson. That has no reference to this case. 

Mr. FoRTAS. That is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may proceed to read, Mr. Lattimore. 

]Mr. Lattimore. May I make a request, Senator? 

The Chairman. You may make a request. 

Mr. Lattimore. My wife is sitting here with me with certain sup- 
porting material that I prepared for this statement. May she from 
time to time hand that material to me as 1 need it? 

The Chairman. I do not think that that should be. done for the 
purpose of implementing your answers. You should make your an- 
swers, as far as you can, and then if you ask for information from 
anyone that is connected with it, it will be granted. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, might I ask a short series of ques- 
tions at that point? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, has Mrs. Lattimore, to your knowl- 
edge, been giving advice and assistance to any of the witnesses before 
this subcommittee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether to call it advice and assist- 
ance. She came over here to help Mr. Holland somewhat, before he 
appeared before this committee. 

Mr. Sourwine. Has she been helping any other witnesses in any 
way, as far as you know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. 

Mr. Sourwine. Has she attended a number of our hearings, to your 
knowledge ? 

Mr. Lattimore. She has attended a number of hearings ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. You knew that she had been taking notes of those 
hearings ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know what she did with those notes ? 

Mr. Lattimore. She brought them home and showed them to me. 

Mr. Sourwine. To your knowledge, has Mrs. Lattimore had any 
contact with witnesses before this subcommittee, other than Mr. 
Holland? 

Mr. Lattimore. We have both of us seen Mr. Carter. 

The Chairman. He is just asking about Mrs, Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. I would rather have you ask her yourself, Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. I am asking what you know. 

Mr. Lattimoke. Mr. Sourwine, my mind is extremely confused 
because of the very complicated work that I have been through pre- 
paring this statement and consulting with other people myself. 

The Chairman. Can you answer the question yes or no ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I can't answer it yes or no. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, the record shows that this 
witness feels that he is not competent to go along, as I understand this 



i^^ INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3065 

answer here. He said he is so confused with the work he has been 
tlirough preparing this that he might not be responsible for his an- 
swers. 

The Chairman. I do not care to take that. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. May I rephrase the question? 

Do you know, Mr. Lattimore, w^hether Mrs. Lattimore has con- 
sulted with any witnesses before this committee before they have 
testified here ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I state, Mr. Sourwine, why my memory is 
confused ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. That is not the question. 

Mr. Lattimore. I cannot answer that clearly. Senator. 

The Chairman. The question is do you know. You can answer 
it whether you know or not, and then explain. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. 

Mr. Sourwine. Has she consulted with any of the witnesses who 
have appeared here, after they testified ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I amplify my previous answer, Mr. Senator ? 

The Chairman. You may explain it, not amplify it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I will explain it by saying that these hearings 
have now been going on for some 8 months. During the course of that 
8 months, both my wife and I have been very busy making notes, 
looking up references, all kinds of things, and for that reason it is 
not at all clear in my mind what persons my wife may have seen or 
consulted with before their hearings or after their hearings in the 
course of this long period. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know of any instances in which Mrs. Latti- 
more has consulted with w^itnesses who appeared ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I recall at the moment. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you advised or assisted any witnesses before 
this committee, you yourself? 

Tlie Chairman. That is, before they testified, do you mean ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Either before or after, in connection with their tes- 
timony here ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have talked with Mr. Holland and Mr. Carter. 
That is all I can recall at the moment, because there may be others, if 
you would name some others. I would be glad to answer whether I 
recall. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you consulted and advised with any witnesses 
before this committee after they had begun their testimony and before 
they had concluded it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not sure. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever come over to Washington to have 
conferences with witnesses before this committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think I did. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you and Mrs. Lattimore ever have conferences 
with witnesses before this committee on the day they testified ? 

Mr. Lattimore. On the day they testified? My wife was over here 
and saw Mr. Holland, I think, on the morning that he testified here. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is that your complete and full answer to this ques- 
tion I just asked you? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is as full as I can make it at the moment. 



3066 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Can you say that you and Mrs. Lattimore did not on 
any occasion come over to Washington and have a conference with 
any of tlie witnesses before this committee on the day they testified? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I couldn't say we didn't. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do jou think you did ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not sure. If I were allowed to consult with 
my wife, I could probably get a clearer recollection. 

^Ir. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that on that point the witness 
be allowed to consult with his wife and then asked to answer the 
question. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Lattimore. She doesn't remember any such occasions. She 
thinks it could only have been Mr. Carter and she doesn't remember 
consulting with him here. 

The Chairman. All right. You may proceed. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk with Mr. Clubb before or after he 
testified ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I talked with Mr. Clubb before he testified here, 
but I didn't know that he was to testify here. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you confer with him after he testified? 

Mr. Lattimore. I talked with him subsequent to his testifying here, 
but I don't recall whether we discussed his testimony here or not. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you think about it, whether or not you did 
discuss with him his testimony before this committee? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I again consult my wife ? 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Ferguson. Was she with you when you were talking to 
him? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think she would have been there ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, if it does not interrupt the Senator — 
Mr. Lattimore, you seem to have the impression that if you had con- 
sulted and advised with any witness before this committee, it was 
Mr. Holland. Apparently after talking with Mrs. Lattimore, as you 
stated she thought if it was anyone it was Mr. Carter. Could it have 
been Mr. Holland and Mr. Carter together? 

Mr. Lattimore. It might have been, but I don't think both of them 
togetlier. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you tell us anything about the occasion on 
which you might have consulted with Mr. Carter about his testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't recall precise dates. I can't recall the precise 
stage which the hearings had reached. I do remember talking with 
both of them, though. 

Mr. Sour"wtne. Well, if you had, with Mrs. Lattimore, made a 
specific appointment and met with Mr. Carter to discuss his testimony 
l)efore this committee, would you not remember it, or if you had done 
so with Mr. Holland would you not remember it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have seen and talked with so many people in the 
last 8 months, on the general subject of 

The Chairman. You can answer that. Would you not have re- 
membered it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, did you ever have dinner with Mr. 
Carter and Mrs. Lattimore at the conclusion of a session of this com- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3067 

niittee at which Mr. Carter had testified, for the purpose of discussing 
with him the testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My wife says she saw him at the time of his hearing. 

The Chairman. The question is : Did you have dinner with him ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I am asking about you, now. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. Do you know whether you had dinner on the night 
of September 20, 1951, which was the date on which Mr. Carter testi- 
fied before this committee? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I couldn't tell you, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did j^ou not have dinner at the Aldo Cafe, in Wash- 
ington, D. C. ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Aldo Cafe ? I may have, I don't remember it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where that cafe is ? 

JNIr. Lattimore. No ; I couldn't tell you. 

Mr. Sour^vine. Have you ever eaten there? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't tell you. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think it is possible that you could have 
•eaten in the Aldo Cafe and not remember it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is quite possible. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know if there is anything unusual about 
the cafe ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know that it is a cafe that has a tremendous 
grape arbor so that wherever you sit at the tables the grapes are hang- 
ing about a foot and a half above your head ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I remember such an arbor ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember eating in that cafe ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I remember eating there ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember the occasion on which you were 
eating there? 

ISIr. Lattimore. Yes ; Mr. Carter was there. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you tell us who else was there ? 

The Chairman. You have grapes and Carter mixed up now. 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I can't remember anyone else there. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you say there was no one else there besides you 
.and Mr. Carter? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't say so; no. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether Mrs. Lattimore was there? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think so. 

Mr. Sourwine. As a matter of fact, do you not know she was there? 

Mr. Latitmore. Yes ; she was there. 

Mr. Sourwine. From your own recollection, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not from my own recollection ; I am sorry. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think it is possible that Mr. Lawrence Ros- 
ino;er was there with you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Might be. No ; neither of us remember his being 
there. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is that your recollection? You said it might be, 
and you turned to Mrs. Lattimore, and she said "No" and you said 
■^'No." What is your recollection, sir? 



3068 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, my memory is not built of the struc- 
ture of grape vines. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. You can answer. What is your 
recollection, please ? 

Mr. Lattimore. None ; blank. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then you would say that we would be unable from 
you to obtain the name of the fourth person, if there was a fourth 
person who was with you that night ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Going back to Mr. Clubb, do you remember 
your conversation with Mr, Clubb ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Before he appeared here ? 

Senator Ferguson. Either before or after. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I remember we dropped in without any pre- 
vious planning or anything to call at the Clubbs'' one day when we 
were over here, and we dropped in because I had called him at the 
Department and was told he was on leave, or something of that sort. 

Senator Ferguson. You saw in the paper, did you not, that he had 
been suspended? 

Mr. Lattimore. If you will let me go on with my story, Senator; 
after receiving this reply from the Department of State, I called his 
house and he said, "Yes, we are at home. Come on over." 

So w^e went over there, and he told us that he had been suspended. 
We then saw it in the paper. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, after he testified, did you have a conver- 
sation with him ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think almost certainly ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk to Mr. Vincent? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Before or after he testified ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Neither before nor after. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Service ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have seen Mr. Service occasionally in the past few 
months in connection with his appearance here before or after, I 
couldn't specify. 

Senator Ferguson. And Mr. Davies ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not Mr. Davies. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, if I understood you correctly, you 
stated earlier that you had not come over to Washington for any con- 
ference with any w^itnesses before this committee. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I recall. 

Mr. Sourwine. W^e have recalled one to your mind, have we not, 
that is, the occasion on which you had dinner with Mr. Carter and 
Mrs. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. I want to ask you if you can recall any otlier oc- 
casions on which you had conferences with witnesses before this 
committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I can't. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you say there were no other occasions on which 
you had conferences with witnesses before this committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I can't. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3069 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Can you say there were not many such conferences ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I can't. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. No more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. You may proceed, Mr. Lattimore, to 
read your statement. 

Mr. Lattimore. The distortions by your witnesses of what I wrote in 
1945 about the Japanese Emperor are even more amazing. Mr. 
Dooman charged that I had been opposed to using the Japanese Em- 
peror as an instrument of American policy after the war, as if Amer- 
icans who opposed keeping pet emperors were somehow un-Americaji, 
and Senator Eastland argued that Communists wanted to overthrow 
the emperor because "communism and monarchy are incompatible'' 
and "Lattimore understood this." 

Mr. Colegrove, rising to the occasion, expressed the idea much more 
vividly, saying that I had urged that the Japanese Emperor "and his 
whole family should be exterminated." 

But Mr. McGovern excelled even Mr. Colegrove in the enormity of 
his accusations. Under prodding and leading questions from Senator 
Eastland, McGovern elaljorated his distortions of my opinions about 
the Japanese Emperor to the point of saying that I "wanted him mur- 
dered," and wanted his family, including "his wife and children," 
treated as "among the worst of the war criminals," and "turned over 
to the Chinese who would know how to deal with him." 

This ludicrous "mishmash" is a deliberate garbling of the opinion 
that I clearl}^ expressed in Solution in Asia, in 1945, that after the war 
(not as "the best way to overthrow Japan"), the Emperor and his 
family should be interned in China, under the supervision of the 
United Nations. This suggestion was obviously predicated on the 
assumption that there would be a strong, stable government in China, 
under Chiang Kai-shek, and that China would be one of the Big Five 
of the United Nations. It was also predicated on the assumption 
that if the Emperor was not made a martyr, but simply removed from 
circulation, the way would be cleared for a future republic in Japan 
which I thought would favor the growth of a democratic system 
(Solution in Asia, pp. 187-188). 

It was a humane suggestion, made at a time when many people, 
inflamed by Japanese atrocities and high American casualties, were 
demanding mass exterminations, just as a few fanatics are demanding 
now that we get rid of our Russian worries, or our Chinese worries, 
by dropping atom bombs indiscriminatelj^ and wiping out women and 
children as well as troops. I have never believed in or advocated 
this kind of bloodthirstiness. 

Others (and I accuse none of them of being Communists) wanted 
to be more drastic. For instance, Senator Brien McMahon was 
quoted in the New York Times of August 11, 1945, as saying, "If 
the Japs are allowed to keep their fantastic god-emperor system, we 
may get an armistice and not an end to the war." Maj. Gen. Claire 
Chennault was quoted in the New York Times of August 30, 1945, 
as declaring that our greatest potential danger was in leaving the 
Japanese Emperor in control, and saying "There will either be a 
popular revolution headed by the commercial class or the Mikado will 
rebuild the old structure and begin new conquests at a future date." 

On September 18, 1945,, Senator Russell, of Geo^rgia, supported by 
Senators Fulbright, McClellan, and Taylor, introduced a joint reso- 

88348 — 52— pt. 9 12 



3070 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

hition to have Emperor Hirohito tried as a war criminal (S. J. Res. 
94, Congressional Record, vol. 91, p. 8680). 

I have here, also, quotations from others who wanted to get rid ot 
the Emperor— including Hanson Baldwin, Mayor LaGuardia, Otto 
Tolischus, Brig. Gen. Carlos Romulo, Admiral William F. Halsey, 
Senators Wallace H. White, Tom Stewart, William Langer and Sun 
Fo of the Chinese Nationalist Government— which I would like to in- 
troduce into the record. , . ^, . q tt 

Senator Smith. What purpose is that, Mr. Chairman? Here are 
some unsworn statements by somebody who is not even at the hearing. 

The Chairman. It may be received at the moment, subject to a 
decision by the committee. 

Mr LA.TTIM0RE. May I speak to your remark. Senator ? 

Senator Smith. I am just making an observation. Neither one of 
those men are here to be subject to cross-examination. You have put 
in ex parte statements from them. . . . . x 

Mr. Lattimore. May I make an observation pertinent to your 

observation ? 

Senator Smith. That is up to the chairman. _ . .. rr.. 

The Chairman. I cannot see anything to raise an issue about, itie 
Chair will pass upon the insertion into the record. , . ^ ,. 

Mr. L\TTiM0RE. Against this background it sounds rather fantastic 
to hear Mr. Colegrove make what was, for a political scientist, an 
extremely rash statement. He said that "extermmatmg" the Jap- 
anese Emperor "has always been the Soviet line." I must confess niy 
own ignorance. I should like to see Professor Colegrove produce the 
evidence on this interesting point. . i ^ j t-c 

On the subject of Japan, I don't want to be misunderstood, if 
the price of gaining your approval is that I forget the stab m the 
back at Pearl Harbor, that I forget the barbarous depredations ot 
Japan in China and other countries, and that I subscribe to emperor 
worship, then the price is one that you will not get from me. I cannot 
forget recent history, and I cannot forgive treachery, whether it is 
made in America or in Japan. I do hope, however, that Japan will 
turn her back on her recent history, that she will become a decent 
member of the family of nations, and that the Emperor will become 
a ruler on the model of the English constitutional monarchy. 
Mr. SouRWiNE. :Mr. Chairman^ may I ask one question? 
The Chairman. Yes. ^ i i 

Mr SouRwiNE. Mr. Lattimore, in the light of your present knowl- 
edge, do you think the United States, was wrong m not eliminating 
the Japanese Emperor? i ^t 

Mr. Lattimore. No. May I explain that by adding that what i 
recommended on the subject of the Japanese Emperor was wntten 
before the end of the war when it was expected that there would be 
a bloody last stand made on the Island of Japan itself before we 
secured a surrender, and that therefore the political aspects, following 
the conquest of Japan, would turn out to be quite different from what 

it actually was. i i -, i -i x n 

Actually, tlie Japanese . snrrendered before we had landed at all. 
The Emperor took part in the surrender, and on the whole, I should 
say, that General MacArthur's handling of the Emperor was con- 
ducted with great diplomatic skill and statesmanship. 
Senator Watkins. May I ask a question ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3071 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Watktns. You saj' "I recommeiided." To whom did you 
make a recommendation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. To anybody who might buy my book. 

Senator Watkins. Did that inchide the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. It included anybody who mightbuy my book. 

Senator Watkins. Is that the only recommendation made? 

Mr. Lattimore. On the subject of the Japanese Emperor, I be- 
lieve that is absolutely the only recommendation I made. 

Senator Watkins."^ I noticed you said in the form that "I recom- 
mended" and that was the reason I was curious to know. 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I "was merely referring to what I had written 
in Solution in Asia. 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to ask one question on that. You 
mentioned again the Solution in Asia. I will ask you whether or not 
you knew that your book. Solution in Asia, was advertised for sale 
by the International Book Store, 1400 Market Street, San Francisco 2, 

dalif. 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I didn't Imow it. 

Senator Ferguson. And did you know that the International Book 
Store, San Francisco, was listed by the Un-American Activities Com- 
mittee report 1947, page 100, "The Communist Party book center in 
the Bay area for the distribution of its literature" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I didn't, Senator, and in fact I believe I had 
never heard of the International Book Store until this moment. 

Senator Ferguson. We talked about the Daily Peoples World this 
morning, did we not, and you had heard that that was a Communist 
newspaper? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I first heard of that at the time of the 
Tydings hearings, a few years ago. 

Senator Ferguson. On January 8, 1945, in the Peoples Daily World, 
this ad appeared under "San Francisco." I am putting that in in 
relation to the witness' testimony, the witness who testified about your 
book being used. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is the first time I have seen it. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that at an execu- 
tive session I took some time ago there was .some testimony on that 
same point. It seemed to me there was an FBI agent who made a 
statement on that. 

The Chairman. That was covered this morning. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, is the Senator offering this for the 
record ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, I am. But I want to call attention to the 
fact that it is listing William Z. Foster's book in the same ad. 

Do you know William Z. Foster. 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know who wrote Sabotage? 

Mr. Lattimore.. No, I don't know that book. 

Senator Ferguson. The Plot Against Peace. Do you know whether 
that was by Albert Kahn ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I have heard of that book, yes. 

Senator Ferguson. So your book was advertised with Mr. Foster, 
Mr. Albert Kahn, and the Solution in Asia. Do you think that might 



3072 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

confirm the man who testified this morning that it was being used 
as background of the Communist Party for their party linei' 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Senator, I have already stated that I don't 
see why the Communists 

The Chairman. Do you think that might confirm? That is the 
question. Do you care to answer that "Yes" or "No," and then elab- 
orate, if you wish ? 

Mr. Lattimoei:. I can't answer that question yes or no, Senator. I 
don't know how the Communist Party operates in these matters. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever talked to any Communists in rela- 
tion to that book '( 

Mr. Lattjmore. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever arrange for any price reduction for 
that book, to Communists or Communist book stores? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I didn't. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not your publisher 
did? 

Mr. Latti3I0RE. I don't know whether he did or not. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he ever consult you about reduction in 
price ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't think I was ever consulted on that. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, will you think about it. You say you 
didn't think so. Will you think a moment and see whether or not you 
do recall that. 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, if this is offered for the record, it 
appears to be a photostat. I believe Mr. Mandel prepared this photo- 
stat or caused it to be prepared. May we ask Mr. Mandel, w^ho has 
been sworn for the duration of these hearings, about this? 

Mr. Mandel, is that a photostat which you caused to be prepared? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. What is it a photostat of? 

Mr. Mandel. It is a photosl:at of the paper called the Daily People's 
World. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. It is a photostat of a portion of a page of that 
paper, is it not ? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes, sir. June 8. 1945, page 5. 

Mr. Sourwine. Being the display ad of the International Book 
Store? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Just one more question about Mr. Foster. 

Do you know who William Z. Foster was, that is, what his position 
was in the United States ? 

Mr. Latiimore. I believe he was at one time one of the leading 
Communists. 

Senator Ferguson. At one time. Do you not think he is now ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Is he ? 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. 

Senator Ferguson. You do not know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I thought he was replaced by Browder or somebody. 

Senator Ferguson. When did that happen? When did you hear 
that? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3073 

Mr. Lattimore. Years ago. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know he was indicted as one of the 
leading Communists ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't answer you on that. I know that people 
considered the leading Communists were indicted, biit I couldn't tell 
you anything about it. 

Senator Ferguson. You do not know whether William Z. Foster 
was indicted ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know Albert Kahn's position? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever hear of him ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have heard of him in connection with that book 
that you have just referred to. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not he wrote pro-Com- 
munist literature? 

Mr. Lattimore. Other than that, I don't know. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Is this to be admitted. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman, That will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked as "Exhibit No. 471" and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 471 
[Daily People's World, June 8, 1945, p. 5] 

San Francisco 
NEW BOOKS AT INTERNATIONAL 

Organized Labor Faces the New World (by Wm. Z. Foster), 5 cents : Discusses 
the growing strength of organized labor, and the possibilities for advancement 
created by the formation of the World Federation of Trade Unions. 

The Plot Against the Peace (by the authors of "Sabotage") : Deals with Nazi 
Germany's secret plans for a Third World War by splitting the United Nations. 

Solution in Asia (by Owen Lattimore) : Mr. Lattimore deals with the political, 
economic, and military factors affecting developments in the Far East. 

International Book Store 

1400 Market Street, San Francisco 2, Calif. 

Free mailing to all parts of the United States 

Daily People's World was cited as the "West Coast mouthpiece of the Com- 
munist Party * * * published by the Pacific Publishing Foundation, Inc., in 
San Francisco. * * * The San Francisco office is located at 590 Folsom 
Street and the Los Angeles oflBce is at 206 South Spring Street." (California 
Committee on Un-American Activities, Report, 1948, p. 342.) Guide to Subveb- 
sn-E Organizations and Publications, May 14, 1951, House Committee on Un- 
American Activities, page 131. 

international bookstore, SAN FRANCISCO 

1. "The Communist Party book center in the bay area for the distribution of its 
literature." (California Committee on Un-American Activities, Report 1947, 
p. 100.) 

Mr. Sourwine. Does the Chair desire the witness to go ahead with 
the reading of his statement ? 

The Chairman. Go ahead with the reading of your statement, 
please. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the record would 
be more balanced 



3074 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



I 



The Chairman. Never mind about the balance of it. You may 
roceed with the reading of your statement. We can take care of the 
„ahince. Please go ahead with your reading. We will take care of 
the balance of the record. That is our obligation. Please go ahead 
with the reading of your manuscript or else desist from it. 

Mr. Lattimore. 4. In 1919, 1 was invited by the State Department 
with about 30 other people to take part in a discussion of far-eastern 
policy; and as part of the preparations for that discussion I con- 
tributed — also on invitation — a memorandum of my views. To the 
best of my recollection this is the only time, in more than 25 years, 
that the State Department has ever asked me for my views. 

For the purpose of discrediting the far-eastern policy of the present 
administration, and presumably to keep himself in the newspapers 
as a perpetual presidential candidate, Mr. Harold Stassen has at- 
tempted to make me the scapegoat of this conference. 

Mr. Stassen accused me of leading, at this conference, a "prevailmg 
Lattimore group" which advocated a Communist line. He then de- 
scribed a "10-point program" which he claimed I had advocated. Mr. 
Stassen obviously did not expect the record of the conference would 
be made public. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I ask leave to interrupt the witness at that 
point, to clarify his statement in that regard? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mv. SouRwiNE. Do you, Mr. Lattimore, intend by that sentence 

The Chairjian. What sentence is that? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. "He then described a '10-point program' which he 
claimed I had advocated." 

The Chairman. You w-ill have to get more of the sentence in there. 

Mr. SouRV/iNE. That is the full sentence. 

The Chairman. It refers back to who ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Stassen. 

Do you intend by that sentence, Mr. Lattimore, to make the 
statement that Mr. Stassen claimed that you alone, as an individual^ 
advopated a 10-point program ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That sentence, Mr. Chairman, should be taken 
in conjunction with the previous sentence in which there is the ex- 
pression quoted from Mr. Stassen "prevailing Lattimore group." _ 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Will you answer the question directly, please ? Did 
you intend by that sentence to make the charge that Mr. Stassen had 
stated that you, as an individual, had advocated a 10-point program? 

Mr. Latitmore. He described me as one of the individuals who had 
advocated a 10-point program. 

Mr. SoxjRwiNE. I am asking about your intent, sir. Did you intend 
by the sentence that I read to charge that Mr. Stassen had stated that 
you, as an individual, personally, had advocated this 10-point pro- 
gram ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My intention was to quote from Mr. Stassen him- 
self, that he said I was one of a gi'oup which advocated a 10-point 
program. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You did not quote from him that way, did you, 
Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I did. He accused me of leading at this con- 
ference a prevailing Lattimore group. Later in my statement I come 
to the question of Mr. Stassen and me personally. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3075 

Mr. SouRWiNE. As a matter of fact you know, do you not, that Mr. 
Stassen said the group advocated these 10 points; that he explained 
what he meant by the group, and that he did not at any time say that 
you personally had avocated all the 10 points. Is that not correct? 

Mr. Lattimore, Mr. Stassen repeatedly made statements which 
would convey to the ordinary member of the public reading the news- 
papers that, as a member of the group, I must have made such state- 
ments personally. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Are you then charging, Mr. Lattimore, that Mr^ 
Stassen did state that you had advocated this 10-point program ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am stating that Mr. Stassen conveyed that im- 
pression. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Now may I get back to the original question, sir. 

I wish we could have a yes or no on it. Did you, by the use of 
this sentence "He then described a '10-point program' which he 
claimed I had advocated" mean to say that Mr. Stassen was charging 
you as a person with advocating this particular 10-point program ? 

Mr. Lattimore. With advocating; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is your intention ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. And will you now 

Mr. Lattimore. Which he claimed I had advocated. 

Mr. Sourwine. Will you now tell the committee from what part in 
the record you are quoting when you say that Mr. Stassen declared 
that you were advocating that program, as an individual? 

Mr. Lattimore. He stated "that the members of this group had not 
differed from each other." 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed with your reading. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Mr. Chairman, please, may I continue? 

Do you not know, Mr. Lattimore, that after having identified the 
group that he was speaking of, after having said there were two leaders 
in this, one perhaps senior, Mr. Owen Lattimore, and Mr. Lawrence 
Rosinger, they were the leaders in the discussion of the prevailing 
group, Mr. Stassen was then asked if he would in a concrete way set 
forth some of recommendations that this group had made during th& 
conference and he stated "The group that was led in the discussion by 
these two gentlemen recommended 10 points for American policy in 
China and in Asia." 

Mr. Lattimore. I submit, Mr. Sourwine, that to the ordinary reader 
that would convey the impression that I had made some of the state- 
ments. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are discussing this, then, only in the light of 
what you consider to be a statement by Mr. Stassen that you as a 
member of this group have advocated the 10-point program that you 
speak of? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the reading, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Accordingly, he let his imagination run riot and 
attributed to me all the opinions expressed at this conference with 
which he disagreed, and some that he just imagined. 

As soon as I learned of Mr. Stassen's statements I appealed to the 
State Department to release the full record of the conference. I pub- 
licly asked Mr. Stassen to join me in this request, which he did not do.. 



3076 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

As soon as I could obtain a transcript of my remarks I released it to 
the press, and later the full transcript of the entire conference was 
released. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt ? 

Do you, Mr. Lattimore, take credit for the release of that conference 
record hj the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, you referred yesterday somewhat 
disparagingly to my ego, but I think in this case I can claim a major 
part of the credit for getting that transcript released. 

Mr. Sourwine. I do no think there is any question about it. 

As a matter of fact, do you know that this committee had asked 
that that transcript be made available to this committee long before 
you asked that it might be made public ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know that it was denied to this committee 
until after you asked that it be made public ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I didn't know that; no. I may have heard it at 
one time, but I didn't know it. 

Mr. Sourwine. I take no issue with the statement that you were 
largely responsible for the release of that transcript. 

The Chairman. All right. You may proceed with your reading, 
Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. You have that in your files, and I ask you to check 
it against what I say here. This transcript clearly showed that I had 
not advocated any of the 10 points which Mr. Stassen had so irrespon- 
sibly labeled as a Lattimore program. His 10 points were as follows : 

1. Deferment of the problem in Asia; priority for Europe. What 
I said was that the problems of Asia and Europe should be handled 
jointly. 

2. No United States aid-to- Asia program until "after long study." 
I did not suggest "long study." I said that we could attract Asian 
countries away from Russia by showing that friendly association with 
the United States was a better and faster way of obtaining economic 
prosperity. 

3. That the Russian Communists were not as aggressive as Hitler. 
On that point Mr. Stassen attributed to me a garbled version of some- 
thing that was said by Mr. George Kennan, of the State Department. 

4. Early recognition of Red China. I did not advocate this. I 
said that to recognize Red China in haste might create in Asia the 
impression that we had been panicked ; but that to defer recognition 
too long, if the Chinese Communists proved that they were there to 
stay, might give the impression that we had been baffled. Inci- 
dentally, I do not believe that we should recognize Red China at this 
time. 

5. The United States should encourage such countries as Britain 
and India to recognize Red China, and should then follow with its 
own recognition. 

Senator Ferguson. IMr. Lattimore, when yon say that you do not 
recommend that we should recognize China at this time, do you know 
of anybody that would recommend that we recognize Rsd China when 
we are figliting a war with her? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't. 

Senator Ferguson. While we are fighting that war? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3077 

Senator Ferguson. Has that anything to do with your recom- 
mendation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I put that in as a safeguard against being 
quoted out of context. 

Senator Ferguson. Quoted by who? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. By this committee or the press or anybody. 

Senator Ferguson. You think that this committee would quote you 
out of context? 

Mr. Lattimore. This committee has quoted me out of context. 

Senator Ferguson. On what occasions ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can give you one occasion when Mr. John Carter 
Vincent had read to him, I believe, or had shown to him, a passage 
from Solution in Asia dealing with what I represented as the attitude 
of the Asian peoples on the frontier of China, and left out the words 
"in their eyes" in such a way as to misrepresent me as believing what 
I said other people thought. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you find that in the transcript? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; it is in the transcript. 

Senator Ferguson. Could you let us see it ? 

Mr. Sour"\vine. Mr. Lattimore, the question was, Did you find that 
in the transcript? It is perfectly obvious from the way you turned 
around to Mrs. Lattimore that you did not. Is that not true? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I was turning around to see if we had a copy 
of tliat part of the transcript with us. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you find it in the transcript? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I did. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I checked the transcript. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you call the attention of the committee to 
the fact that there was something in the way of an omission ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you think it could have been an omission, or 
do you want to now cite it as bad faith upon the part of the committee? 

Mr. Lattuviore. That particular quotation has been used against me 
so often, and I have protested against it so often, that when I en- 
counter it now I can hardly avoid the assumption that it is deliberate 
misquotation. 

Senator Ferguson. You mean that it has been quoted before with 
this omission? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, it has. 

Senator Ferguson. Who quoted it? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I ask if we have a record of it? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; we would like to have it. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator McCarthy quoted it, and I can produce 
that quotation. 

Senator Ferguson. I wish you would, for the record. 

Mr. Lattimore. And Miss Freda Utley quoted it, and I can produce 
that quotation. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. How about producing the quotation that you 
charged the committee made out of context? 

Mr. Lattimore. As soon as I can get hold of the copy of the tran- 
script, Mr. Sourwine, I will do that. 

The Chairman. Proceed with your reading for the time being. 



3078 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. 5. The United States should encourage such coun- 
tries as Britain and India to recognize Red China, and should then 
follow with its own recognition. There is nothing like this in the 
transcript. 

6. That it should be United States policy to turn Formosa over to 
i;he Chinese Communists. I did not mention Formosa. 

7. That it should be our policy to permit the Chinese Communists 
to take Hong Kong. Although "Mr. Stassen said this was one of the 
"hot arguments" of the conference, the only mention of Hong Kong in 
the entire conference was by Mr. Butterworth of the State Depart- 
ment, who had merely said, "The British have not sought any par- 
ticular assistance through us for the defense of Hong Kong." Mr. 
Stassen himself also referred to Hong Kong, but there was no 
"argument." 

8. That Premier Nehru had shown reactionary and arbitrary ten- 
dencies. I did not speak on the subject of India, nor mention Nehru, 
for whom I have always had the highest regard and whom I consider 

"the outstanding representative of freedom in Asia. 

9. That tlie United States should not approve the Nationalist 
blockade of the Chinese Communist coast, and should send economic 
aid to Communist areas. I did not say this. 

10. That no aid should be sent to the non-Communist guerillas, 
nor to the Chiang Kai-shek forces. I said nothing of this sort. 

In his second hearing, after the full record had been released, Mr. 
Stassen backtracked. He did not, of course, admit error. That would 
have been out of character for a Presidential candidate. He attempted 
to cover up by quoting some member of what he had labeled the 
"Lattimore group" (who, he said, had "not differed" from each other) 
in support of each of his 10 points. He quoted me in connection with 
only 1 of the 10, and that in a way to distort my meaning. 

Confronted with the absurd discrepancies between the kind of con- 
ference that he had pretended to describe and the kind of conference 
that was revealed when the full transcript was finally published, 
Stassen tried to escape by doing acts on the flying trapeze, as if he 
were a road-show McCarthy swinging through the air with the great- 
est of ease from "205 names" to "57" names and all the rest of it. In- 
stead of continuing to claim that I was the leader of the group because 
I advanced all or any of their 10 points, the only reason he could now 
give for calling me and Mr. Lawrence Rosinger its "leaders" was that 
we had done most of the talking; although even this was not the case. 

Wliatever agreement there was between Mr. Rosinger and me was 
purely accidental. I know Mr. Rosinger only very slightly and had 
had no discussion with him on any of these matters either before or 
during the conference. Our contributions to the discussion happened 
to be on different subjects, except on the matter of the recognition of 
Red China and, since we differed markedly on this, there was not 
even anything which could be termed agreement between us. 

On the subject of the recognition of China, Mr. Rosinger advocated 
recognition as "early as possible," within "perhaps 3, 6, maybe 9 
months," whereas I pointed out that there could be serious disad- 
T^antages either in a hasty recognition of the Red regime, or in delay- 
ing recognition too long. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3079 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness 
-whether he thinks that the quoted statements there, his own and Mr. 
Rosinger's, are actually different or whether his own statement is 
only more palatable? 

Mr; Lattimore. I think my statement is entirely different. 

Mr. SouRWiNE.'Mr. Rosinger, within "perhaps 3, 6, maybe 9 
months." You were urging that recognition be not delayed too long. 
Wliat is the difference? 

Mr. Lattimore. One of the differences is that I have here simply 
boiled down what I actually had to say on the subject, and one of 
the things that I had to say on the subject was that any question of 
recognition of China should be considered only in conjunction with 
a number of other moves on policy in Asia. I don't believe that point 
was taken up by Mr. Rosinger at all. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. The discussion of the whole question of what you 
said can well be saved for a later date. But I was endeavoring to find 
out whether, on the basis of what you had seen fit to quote here, you 
felt that there was a contradiction between what Mr. Rosinger had 
urged, and what you were urging, 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I think there is a distinctive difference. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you think they are contradictory ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think contradictory, in that context, Mr. Sour- 
wine, is a rather trick word. 

Senator Ferguson. Do I understand the witness is accusing the 
counsel of trying to trick him ? 

The Chairman. Yes ; and it has been going on right along. ^ Answer 
that question. You can answer it yes or no. Do you think it is con- 
tradictory ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That my position was contradictory of Rosinger's? 

The Chairman. The statement of the witness will be stricken from 
the record as regards the question being tricky. 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Senator. I still think it was 
a tricky question. 

The Chairman. That will be stricken from the record also. Now 
if you will answer the question we will get along. 

ikr. Lattimore. I think that the question is not susceptible to 
answer in terms of the word "contradictory." 

The Chairman. Very well. Go on. Go on with your reading. 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a fact that in October 1949, many responsible, 
well-informed and patriotic men believed that it would be sound pol- 
icy to recognize the new government in China. To hold that belief was 
not in the slightest unpatriotic or subversive. Wlien the British Gov- 
ernment recognized the Red government of China, there was no ap- 
preciable Tory opposition, and the present conservative government 
confirms that policy today. I hold it against no man that he took 
that position at that time. I freely admit that I was not crystal-clear 
in my own mind then as to the best course of action. _ If I myself, at 
that confernece, had advocated the recognition of China, I should not 
"be in the least ashamed of it. But on the point of relevant fact, the 
record shows that I did not. It would be more accurate to accuse Mr. 
Rosinger of conniving with Mr. William R. Herod, president of the 
General Electric Co., Mr. William S. Robertson of the American & 
Foreign Power Co., and J. Morden Murphy, vice president of the 



3080 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Bankers Trust Co. All of these men advocated recognition at that 
time, as the transcript shows. I present for your record quotations 
from these and other men who advocated recognition of Red China. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, at that point, the entire transcript 
of the proceedings of that State Department conference is in the 
record of this committee, as printed in volume 5. 

I should like at this time to tender to Mr. Lattimore and his counsel, 
and Mrs. Lattimore, the committee copy of the record of Vincent's 
testimony. 

I am still interested in having IVIr. Lattimore identify the particular 
quotation which he says was printed improperly. 

The Chairman. It will be presented to the witness.^ Mrs. Latti- 
more is not a witness before this committee, and neither is his counsel. 
It will be presented to the witness. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I beg the C'hair's pardon. 

The Chairman. If the witness AA-ants to refer to his counsel or any- 
one else, that is his business. 

Mr. Fortas. Do you want us to have Mr. Lattimore look at this 
now ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator FerPtUSon. Mr. Chairman, at this time, while we are on 
that particular record, I want to offer into the record, back at the time 
we put in this ad from the International Book Store, the remarks of 
the report of 1948, page 342, Guide to Subversive Organizations and 
Publications, on May 14, 1951, House Committee on Un-American 
Activities, page 131. 

The Chairman. That will go in in connection with the other offer? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; with the ad. 

The Chairman. All right. 

I think you are going to take up considerable time here, in having 
the witness look up through the labyrinth of testimony. _ 

Mr. Lattimore. May I have some assistance, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. I think probably it would be well to defer the mat- 
ter until a later date. 

Mr. Lattimore. It is all right with me. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I am sorry, sir. 

The Chairman. I want to say that I understand a request was made 
for a continuation of the hearing by Mr Fortas. 

Mr. Fortas. I said, Mr. Chairman, that I had engagements Satur- 
day and Sunday out of town, that it would be possible for me to fly 
back and get here Monday morning, but it would be very difficult, in- 
deed. But I could get back Wednesday morning. 

The Chairman. We are deferring other committees. I have put 
over the Appropriations Committee today in order to be here. I am 
going to put over the Judiciary Committee on Monday in order to go 
on. We just must go through with it to a conclusion. I am sorry to 
say that we just cannot accommodate you in that respect. 

Mr. Fortas. I should say. Mr. Chairman, that I made the other 
arrangements on the basis of Mr. Moi-ris' kind statement to me that 
the committee would have to finish by Friday night. Is that not true? 

Mr. Morris. No, I did not, Mr. Fortas. 1 said that we had a hear- 
ing scheduled for Monday, and I gave as the reason why we could not 
begin on Wednesday as you suggested the fact that we would have to 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3081 

finish this week this hearing because of the other engagement on Mon- 
day. 

Mr. FoRTAS. That is what I tried to say, briefly though. 

Mr. JMoRBis. That made no mention of Friday. 

Mr. FoRTAS. You said this week. 

Mr. Morris. I did. 

Mr. FoRTAS. As I understand it. the chairman is now suggesting 
that we go on Monday. 

The Chairman. We will go on with this hearing because the Sen- 
ator from Michigan here, who is i member of the Appropriations 
Committee, and also other Senators, are detained. We just have to 
conclude this so as to go on to other work. 

Today I had to adjourn the Appropriations Committee so as to 
come back here. 1 am sorry to say that our condition is such that we 
just cannot always accommodate the May we would like to accommo- 
date. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that we hold 
the hearing on Saturday also ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir, we will be here on Saturday also. 

Mr. FoRTAs. It is absolutely impossible for me to go and be here 
on Saturday. 

The Chairman. You can have some other member of your firm here. 

Mr. FoRTAS. There is no one else who is considering this case, sir. 

The Chairman. I am sorry not to be able to accommodate you, but 
the work is so, here, that we just have to put in every hour, as you may 
see since you have been up here, as you know without being told of it. 

Mr. FoRTAS. I know, Senator, but I did make this engagement on 
the basis of what I understood Mr. Morris to say, and I cannot cancel 
it. 

Mr. Morris. There was no mention that we would not have any- 
thing on Saturday. 

Mr. FoRTAS. I understood you to say Friday night. If I misunder- 
stood you, I am sorry. 

The Chairman. I wish I could accommodate you, Mr. Fortas. I 
am sincere in that; but it just cannot be done; that is all there is 
to it. You have other members of your firm. 

Mr. FoRTAS. I do have other members of my firm, but there is no- 
body who is familiar with this matter. However, you will have to give 
me a little time. 

The Chairman. I will have to deny your request, that is all. I am 
sorry to do it. 

I do not think we should delay the committee to look up something 
through that record at this time. I would like to go on. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, in addition to the statements on 
the subject of the recognition of Red China, at this conference that 
we were discussing, I have some supplementary statements in favor 
•of that at the same time which I desire 

The Chairman. I do not know what question you are addressing 
this to. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am addressing this to the point in my statement 
where I say "I present for your record quotations from these and 
other men who advocated recognition of Red China." 

The Chairman. Very well. You may proceed and present that, and 
the Chair will pass on it. We will go over it. 



30S2 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

I may say to you that I am going to pass on these things as to whether 
or not they are material or in line with the hearing. I am gomg to 
pass on them just as soon as I can. 

(For the material referred to see exhibit 47 < which appears on p. 

3T03 of appendix I, pt. 10.) ^ , -,.-,1.1,^^1,1 

Mr Lattimore. A member of this committee did his best to help 
Mr Stassen As "evidence," Mr. Stassen cited the fact that I made 
the' not very brilliant or original remark that there was a "new situa- 
tion" in Asia. "That meant the recognition of Communist China, 
doesn't it ?'' asked Senator .Smith, eagerly coming to his aid. "That i& 
right," said Stassen. i -n x- 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, I would like to know why Professor 
Lattimore has put in the words "eagerly coming to his aid." 

What is the basis for any such statement as that, Mr. Lattimore i 
Mr. Lattimore. That is 'the impresson I got from reading the tran- 

^^ Senator Smith. Is there anything in the transcript that reads that? 
That is another part of your imagination. I guess you got that from 
your epidermis that you referred to yesterday, the feeling. . 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Whv are you justified m saying that i 

Mr. Latcimore. I think that Mr. Stassen had made a not at all con- 
vincing statement and that he received immediate support. 

Senator Smith. I asked the question. According to what you said,, 
that meant the recognition of Communist China, does it not ? That is 
a question, is it not? 

Mr Lattimore. It is a question and it is a leading question. 

Senator Smith. Maybe it is leading, but why do you say I was 
eagerly coming to his aid? . 

Mr. "Lattimore. Because my impression was that it was a leading 
question, and for the purpose of leading him to 

Senator Smith. Do you have any reason on earth why 1 should 
want to come to Mr. Stassen's aid? 

Mr. Lattimore. None ; except the impression I have here. 

Senator Smith. That is just your imagination at work; is it not? 

Mr Lattimore. My interpretation of a written text, Senator. 

Senator Smith. There is nothing in that text that says anything. 

Senator Ferguson. Of course, Mr. Lattimore, it is also trying to 
infer that the Senator did it in bad faith. Is not that what you wanted 
to convey to the public? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Then why did you use it? 

Mr. Lattimore. There is no implication of bad faith. 

Senator Ferguson. Then why did you use it? 

Mr. Lattimore. The indication is that this was a statement that 
might be strengthened to imply the recognition of Communist China 
and Senator Smith had helped Mr. Stassen to make that, to carry that 

inference further. ^ ^ -, o ^^^ ^ 4. 

Senator Ferguson. You accuse Stassen of bad faith, do you not, 

in that record ? ^ ,-, . .i 

]Mr. Latttmore. No, I don't accuse Stassen of anything more than 

j ust trying to get on in the world. 

Senator Ferguson. And not of bad faith ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3083 

Mr. LAi^riMORE. Not of bad faith, no, just trying to get on in the 
world. 

Senator Smith. You think then that any time a committee member 
asks a question to clear up the statement of a witness, that that is 
eagerly helping, for the witness that you referred to, eagerly coniing 
to his aid. That is what you said, did you not ? And you said it with- 
out any foundation. 

Mr. Lattimore, That is simply my impression on reading the 
transcript. If I misinterpreted you, I would be glad to change it. 

The Chaiemax. You are making that a part of your oath here,- 
bef ore this committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. 'V\'liat, this statement here ? 

The Chairman. Yes, certainly. 

Mr. Lattimore. Surely. 

Senator Smith. We might ask him to prove that now. I think that 
would make a good point. 

The Chairman. We might have to go into your mental processes 
in order to find out if you were eager. 

Senator Smith. That just goes to show, Mr. Chairman, the totaL 
irresponsibility of this witness' statements, without foundation. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, you say you did not accuse Mr. 
Stassen of bad faith. 

The Chairman. He said so. He testified to it here today. 

Senator Ferguson. I want to go back on page 32, where you ac- 
cuse him, that — 

Stasseii tried to escape by doing acts on the flying trapeze, as it he were a road- 
show McCarthy swinging through the air with the greatest of ease from "205 
names" to "57" names — 

and all the rest of it. You mean that that sentence does not infer 
bad faith. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that sentence infers great agility. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you pretend as a scholar and as a teacher 
in a college that your answer is an answer to the question that I asked ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

The Chairman. You will proceed with your reading. Everybody 
is in bad faith, excepting Mr. Lattimore. 

Senator Smith. That seems to be the case. 

Mr. Lattimore. How much more silly can the part-time president 
of a great university get ? 

Senator Ferguson. Now, who are you talking about ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Stassen. 

Senator Ferguson. I have been talking about a Johns Hopkins pro- 
fessor, and I wondered whether or not you had come into that. 

Mr. Lattimore. How much more silly can the part-time president 
of a great university get ? 

Senators, if you are really interested in the future of our country — 
and I am sure that you are — you will look into your minds and hearts 
and try to find the answer to the real and shocking question, "Why 
does a man of Stassen's stature engage in irresponsible and false ac- 
cusations of pro-Communist views? Is this committee lending itself 
to tlie encouragement of such destructive activities by the politically 
ambitions, the fellow-travelers of witch-burning, the insecure, and the 
vain and ambitious?" 



3Qg4 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You say that is not charging Mr. Stassen with bad 

faith? 
Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. . , 

The Chairman. He is charging him with perjury. Whether that 

is bad faith or not, I do not know. i • .u ^ • i ^„;„„ 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, do you claim that is charging 

him with good faith ? , . , . • i i i. j-„ j 

Mr. Lattimore. I claim that is charging him as is clearly stated 

here, with irresponsibility. , . ^ -.i i i j -4. „^„„ 

Senator Ferguson. And that is not bad faith when he does it under 

^^Mr. Latiimore. Senator, you are a lawyer. You would have to de- 
fine that. I can't. ., .. • 19 

Senator Ferguson. Then why did you use it— it is your word i 

Mr. Lattimore. I used the term "irresponsible." .. . . ■^■.9 

Senator Ferguson. And you say that is accusing him ot bad taith? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; it is not accusing him of bad faith. 

The Chairman. All right; go ahead. 

Mr Sour^vine. Mr. Lattimore, do you think that a witness, or any 
other person, can use words of invective and then escape their legal 
effect by claiming that they have no knowledge of their legal ellect^ 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine- 

The Chairman. Just answer that "Yes" or "No," and we will see 

where we will get. . , , ^ • „ 

Mr. Lattimore. My answer is that I am incapable ot answering 

that question. • t i tt 

The Chairman. Mr. Lattimore, are you a teacher in Johns ±iop- 

Mns? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

The Chairman. Of what institution are you a graduate ( 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not a graduate of any institution. 

The Chairman. Are you a graduate of any high school even? 

Mr. Lattimore. I finished my studies at a school m England 



The Chairman. Did you graduate from high school ? Can you not 

answer that question ? • . 1 . 1 j. t 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I just want to make a point here that i 

went to school in England where they do not graduate. 

The Chairman. Please answer the question. Did you ever graduate 

from high school ? You can answer that "Yes" or "No." 
Mr. Lattimore. All right, Senator. 

The Chairman. What is your answer? , , -r 

Mr Lattimore. I didn't graduate from a high school. I went to 

school in England; I left school at the age of 19 and there wjis no 

such thing as graduation ceremonies or diploma or anything ot that 

Tlie Chapman. Did you ever graduate from a grammar school? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. . 

Senator Jenner. Mr. Chairman, along that line, while we are on 

that subject , , , , • • .i ^- 

The Chairman. The reason I asked that question is the apparent 
desire of this witness to avoid the consequences of his own statements 
by saying that he does not understand the statement, after it has 
been brought to his attention. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3085 

Senator Jenner. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the witness a question 
along that line ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, on your statement there I have no 
desire whatever to escape any responsibility for what I have said. 

The Chairman. I do not care what your desire is, 

Mr. Lattimore. I will stand by every word that I have written in 
this statement. Wliat I am declining to do is to accept legalistic para- 
phrasers and rephrasings of what I have said in terms which I do not 
understand. 

Senator Smith. Maybe I can understand it. Let me ask you about 
this: On the bottom of that paragraph, you refer to "the fellow 
travelers of witch burning." Who are you talking about there ? Can 
you tell us who you are referring to there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I should say that Mr. Stassen at that moment was 
fellow traveling along with Senator McCarthy, and I should say that 
Senator McCarthy is a graduate witch burner. 

Senator Jenner. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Smith. Those are the only ones that you refer to there? 

Mr. Lattimore. Those are the only ones that I have at the moment. 

Senator Ferguson. I suppose you are not imputing bad faith in 
that answer that yau made about Senator McCarthy and Mr. Stassen ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think there is a difference there. 

Senator Ferguson. You think that is bad faith? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think there is a difference between Senator Mc- 
Carthy and Stassen. I think Mr. McCarthy is capable of bad faith. 
I think Mr. Stassen is just too slippery. That is, the question of bad 
faith and good faith probably doesn't alarm him. 

Senator Jenner. You say you are an academic specialist on the 
Far East? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Jenner. We should like to know when you are speaking 
as an academic expert and when you are expressing the opinions of a 
private citizen.. 

I will ask you this question : Are you an expert on politics, eco- 
nomics, geography, or military science ? 

The Chairman. On either of those, is that what you mean. Sen- 
ator? ' 

Senator Jenner. That is right. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not primarily on any of those. 

Senator Jenner. Then what academic degrees do you have? 

Mr. Lattimore. None whatever. 

The Chairman. He has none. 

Senator Jenner. He says he is an academic expert, but he has no 
degrees. 

Senator Smith. I believe he does have some honorary degrees. 

Senator Jenner. You said you were an academic expert on the Far 
East. I asked you what academic degrees you hold and -you said 
"None." 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Jenner. That is all I want, Mr. Chairman. He has an- 
swered my question. 

The Chairman. Go on with the reading. 

88348— 52— pt. 9 13 



3086 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. 5. In addition to the foregoing Government con- 
nections, I once lectured, on invitation and without pay, to a group 
of State Department personnel, on Japan. I was one of a number of 
outside persons who gave similar lectures. 

Mr. SoiJRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, 1 think the committee needs a little 
more information on that subject. 

Did you lecture on more than one occasion, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lat'I'imore. Only that one occasion. 

Mr. Sour WINE. Just one occasion? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the only occasion I can recall. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you remember when that was ? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I look and see if I have the documentation on 
that? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. While we are waiting for that answer, is it your 
statement that you did not give a series of talks or lectures for per- 
sonnel of the State Department? 

IMr. Lattimore. To the best of my recollection, I never did any- 
thing of that kind; no. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. This particular lecture that you speak of, the date 
of which you are trying to get us, can you tell us how that was ar- 
ranged ? 

jSlr. Lattimore. I will bring in the exact date reference tomorrow, 
Mr. Sourwine. It was arranged by a letter to me from someone in the 
State Department. I remember being asked about that at the time of 
the Tydings committee hearings, and didn't remember, and I believe 
I looked it up later and found that it was Mr. — I think his name is 
Francis J. Russell. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether Mr. John Carter Vincent 
had anything to do with that ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know what position he held at that time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't recall — no. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever discuss with him the subject of your 
lecture either before or after you made it? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Sourwine. If that date could be furnished for the record, I have 
no more questions, Mr. Chairman, on that point. 

The Chairman. All right. Oo ahead with your reading, Mr. 
Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Just to keep the record full at this moment, I believe 
the date was probably early in 1946. 

Mr. Sourwine. Tliank you. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Lattimore. 6. In 1945, on my own initiative, I wrote to Presi- 
dent Truman, expressing my views on China policy. 

Mr. Sourwine. I would like to ask the witness if he kept a copy of 
that letter. 

Mr. Laitimore. Yes, I ke])t a copy of that letter. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you have it with you? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I do. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you furnish it for the committee record ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Surely. 

Mr. Sourwine. I ask that that letter, as furnished and identified by 
Mr. Lattimore, be placed in the record at this point. 



' INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3087 

The Chairman. Let us look at it first. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. This is a copy, Mr. Lattimore, of the letter that you 
speak of ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a copy. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it a carbon copy ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; it is a typed copy. 

Senator Smith. Do you have the carbon copy ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I have a carbon copy. ' 

Senator Smith. An original carbon copy ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The original carbon copy ; yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. There is only one copy of this. For the informa- 
tion of this committee, it is only a single page, does the Chair believe 
it should be read ? 

The Chairman. One moment, please ; we have not looked at it. 

Senator Smith, will you take over the chair, please? I have another 
assignment. 

Senator Ferguson. I move, Mr. Chairman, that the letter to the 
President be made a part of the record, and if there is any question 
about it it may be compared with the carbon copy. 

Senator Smith (presiding). Without objection, that will be done, 

(Letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 473" and is as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 473 

June 10, 1945. 
Hon. Hat.ry S. Truman, 

President of the United States. 

Dear Mr. President: When Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, on the recom- 
mendation of President Roosevelt, appointed me his political adviser in 1941, the 
policy of the United States was to support a united China. There appears now 
to be a major change in our policy, which may invite the danger of a political 
and even a territorial division of China and the further danger of conllict and 
rivalry between America and Russia. 

Until quite recently, great care was taken to avoid any inference that America, 
in aiding China as a nation, was committing itself to all-out support of one party 
in China's domestic affairs. There now appears to be a fundamental change. 
Public statements by men regarded as spokesmen for American policy encourage 
many Chinese to believe that America now identities the Chinese Government 
with one party and only one party, commits itself to the maintenance of that 
party, and may in the future support that party in suppressing its rivals. 

Such a belief among Chinese may make Russians feel that America has led 
the way in committing itself to one party in China, and that Russia would be 
justified in following that lead and committing itself to the other major party. 
As a consequence, we may be heading straight into a situation in which political 
partisanship and rivalry for control of strategic geographical zones will be the 
actual starting point for any discussion of far-eastern issues between America 
and Russia. 

In the eyes of many people such a development would mean that America it- 
self, long the supporter of China's political and territorial integrity, had initiated 
a new policy identified with the political and territorial partition of China. 

These considerations point to the possibility of grave crisis and make me feel 
it my duty as a citizen to lay before you, Mr. President, the opinion that the 
crisis cannot be averted by approaching the problem through the politics of 
either China or Russia. The first step toward a solution must be to correct the 
alarmingly rapid drift of current American policy. 

With the utmost earnestness, I venture to urge you to have America's policy 
toward China impartially reviewed by advisers who are not associated with 
either the formulation or the implementation of that policy as recently prac- 
ticed. 

Resi)ectfully yours, 

[s] Owen Lattimore. 

OL. 



3088 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Smith. Are we ready to proceed? Do you have some 
further questions ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Not immediately, sir. 

Senator Smith. I would like to ask Mr. Lattimore one question. 

On the strength of that letter which you wrote to the President, 
you had a conference with the President? 

Mr. LATTiMOitE. That is right. 

Senator Smith. And he gave you 3 minutes ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Just about. 

Senator Smith. All right ; go ahead. 

Mr. Latpimore. I didn't have a stop watch with me. 

Senator Smith. But you said in your document here it was 3 min- 
utes, did you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; that is my recollection. But it was a relative 
order of magnitude that I made. 

The President, in response, asked me to come to see him, and I did. 
Our conference lasted about 3 minutes. Neither my letter nor my 
visit had the slightest effect on American policy. This is the only time, 
in more than 25 years, that I ever took the initiative in writing to a 
President of the United States. 

Senator Ferguson. Wlien he replied, did he only ask you to come 
and see him ? He did not give you any opinion, did he ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have a copy of his reply here, which I will be glad 
to submit, if you want it. 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to see it. 

JNIr. Lattimore. I think the reply says : "Glad to see you some time." 

Senator Ferguson. I want to know whether it was an answer to your 
letter or what. You say now there has been nothing done by our 
Government after the date of the letter of June 1945, indicating that 
the President followed anything you had to say in that letter ? 

]Mr. Lattisiore. Indicating that my visit had the slightest effect on 
American policy. 

Senator Ferguson. You say there is nothing? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not in my opinion. 

Senator Ferguson. I will have some questions later on it. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Is that the only occasion when you visited a Presi- 
dent of the United States, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the only occasion on which I have ever 
visited Mr. Truman. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I asked if that was the only occasion on which you 
visited a President of the United States. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry, I thought you said the President. A 
President ; no. I also saw President Roosevelt several times, in con- 
nection with my work with Chiang Kai-shek. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I will reserve questions for a later time, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you leave with the President any of your 
writings? 

Mr. Lattimore. My book, you mean ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I didn't. 

Senator Ferguson. Or any writing, outside of the letter? 

Mr. Lattimore. I left with him two memoranda. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3089 

Senator Ferguson. Have you copies of the memoranda ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have copies of those memoranda. Incidentally, 
there is some supplementary correspondence about arranging a con- 
ference. Would you like to see that, too ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; I would like to see it all. 

Mr. Lattimore, when you gave us the first letter, why did you not 
give us the memoranda that you left ? 

Mr. Lattimore. You asked for the letter. I have the whole lot 
here, ready to hand over. I don't think it is an indication of reluc- 
tance. 

Mr. FoRTAS. May we take a recess while these letters are read? 
We have been going for about an hour and 20 minutes. 

Senator Smith. Wait until he asks about these memoranda. 

Senator Ferguson. I move, Mr. Chairman, that we make all of 
these records a part of the record. 

Senator Smith. Does that include the memoranda you were talking 
about? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. Is the document attached here ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; it is attached. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. 

Senator Smith. That will be done subject to the decision of the 
chairman, if there is any reason why the communication the President 
makes to a third party should not go into the record. I am not too 
familiar with that rule or policy. 

(For the correspondence referred to see exhibit No. 530A, B, C, D, 
E, pp. 3386 to 3388.) 

Senator Smith. We will recess for 5 minutes. 

(At this point a short recess was taken, after which the hearing 
was resumed.) 

Senator Smith. We will proceed with the hearing. Are there 
any further questions before we proceed with reading the statement ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by our custodian 
of records to be sure that the witness and counsel understand that the 
transcripts of the Vincent testimony which we handed over to them 
are the committee file copies, and should not be taken with them. 

Senator Smith. Yes. 

All right, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, at this point I have found the 
relevant passages in the transcript about the quotation from Solution 
in Asia that was shown to Mr. Vincent — No, it was apparently not 
shown to him, but read to him. May I indicate it ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What page is that ? 

Mr. Lattimore. 3246. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Of the transcript? 

Mr. Lattimore. Of the transcript. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And from page of Solution in Asia ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It refers to as quoted on page 139. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you have a copy of that Solution in Asia? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. There is one here. 
 What is the quotation which you say was read out of context ? 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

The fact that the Soviet Union always stands for democracy is not to be over- 
looked. It stands for democracy because it stands for all the other things. Here 
In America we are in the habit of taking a narrow view of foreign claimants to 



3090 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

the status of democracy. If China or Russia or some other alien people do not 
measure up to the standards of some particular American modification of Anglo- 
Saxon democracy, we say that it is not democratic. We are going to find our- 
selves boxing with shadows instead of maneuvering in politics, if we stick to 
this habit. The fact is that for most of the people in the world today, what 
constitutes democi-acy in theory is more or less irrelevant. What moves people 
to act, to try to line up with one party or country and not with another, is the 
difference between what is more democratic and less democratic in practice. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What context was that taken out of? 

Mr. Lattihiore. That was taken out of the context, the previous 
paragraph, which begins "To all of these peoples — " that is, peoples of 
the frontier of Russia — 

the Russians and the Soviet Union have a great power of attraction. In their 
eyes, rather doubtfully in the eyes of the older generation, the Soviet Union 
stands for strategic security, economic prosperity, technological progress, mirac- 
ulous medicine, free education, equality of opportunity, and democracy, a pow- 
erful combination — 

then that goes on — 

The fact that the Soviet Union also stands for democracy — 

which is clearly linked to the previous statement — 

In their eyes — 

is not to be overlooked. 

Senator Ferguson. But does it not indicate clearly that there was 
something about it; it was not taken out of context to mislead, was it? 

Let me see 3^our book. 

In the transcript, do the words "also stands" indicate that there was 
something else in your book before about it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; it indicates the previous paragraph, you see, 
the two. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; but there was not any attempt to leave the 
impression there were not any paragraphs before this? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. The whole statement is introduced, the whole 
passage is introduced, by the statement that "in their eyes'' it looks 
like this, not in my eyes, but in their eyes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Lattimore; that paragraph you have just read 
has several sentences. The second sentence says : 

Here in America we are in the habit of taking a narrow view of foreign 
claimants to the status of democracy. 

Did you mean that as you wrote it, to cover only what we here in 
America are in the habit of from the standpoint of the eyes of the 
peoples of Russia and the Soviet Union, or from the standpoint of the 
peojiles of Asia that you were referring to in the paragraph above? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a little bit complicated, your question, Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. We will reduce it to a simpler form. 

Is all of this paragraph which you read, which you say was taken 
out of context, is air of that paragraph to be read as an expression of 
what these "peoples" referred to in the paragraph above? 

Mr. Lattimore. All of it is to be taken in context with the intro- 
ductory statement that, politically, the Soviet Union, as of 1945 had 
a great power of attraction to people on its frontiers. 

I then describe the reasons for that power of attraction, as I thought 
it appeared to the eyes of the people affected. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3091 

The statement as presented in the transcript looks as if I had merely 
given a eulogistic description of Soviet Russia, as my own description, 
without reference to the opinions of the people whom I had previously 
mentioned. I think that is a serious distortion of context. 

Mr. SouRwaNE. Mr. Lattimore, there are a number of separate sen- 
tences in that paragraph, are there not? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. SouEWiNE. How about this sentence: 

We are going to find ourselves boxing with shadows instead of maneuvering 
In politics if we stick to this habit. 

Who is the "we" that you were referring to there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. "We" is primarily the United States, but I think 
it might be stretched to include also the democracies of Western 
Europe with interests in Asia. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. Then you ^ay: 

The fact is that for most of the people in the world today, what constitutes 
democracy in theory is more or less irrelevant. 

Wlien you said "fact" there, were you referring only to a fact in 
the eyes of all of these people that you mentioned in the paragraph 
above? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I was referring to a fact in my own opinion. 

Mr. Sourwt:ne. But in three sentences above that, where you said, 
"The fact that the Soviet Union" — you were not referring to a fact 
in your own opinion; is that right? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I was referring to a fact in the eyes of the 
people to whom I referred. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think counsel for the committee understood 
that, and deliberately quoted this out of context? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I presumed that they had graduated from more 
grammar schools, high schools, colleges, and so forth, than I had. If 
I was able to w^rite it, they ought to be able to read it. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I have no more questions, IMr. Chairman. 

Senator Ferguson. How could the previous paragraph that you 
claim was left out after this sentence : 

Here in America we are in the habit of taking a narrow view of foreign 
claimants to the status of democracy. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think the two paragraphs are very closely tied 
together. Senator Ferguson. 

Senator Fergusox. Well, who is the "we" here? Here in America? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. That was not saying there that the people of 
Russia 

Mr. Lattimore. No — here in America, we Americans are in the 
habit of taking a very narrow view of foreign claimants to the status 
of democracy. 

In other words, we do not regard the Russians as democratic, but, 
for the reasons given above, there is the possibility that other people, 
who don't know the United States, might take the Russians as demo- 
cratic. 

That is a political fact which we have to take in consideration, if 
we want to set up a counter program that makes those people more 
attracted to us and our policy than to the Russians and their policy. 



3092 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

In fact, somewhere else I state that the United States has more power 
of attraction over Asia than any other country, if we will use it rightly. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what Mr. Vincent said about your 
paragraph, whom you have quoted here as being able to be an Am- 
bassador, and placed him on a par with some of the other members of 
the State Department in the higher brackets? 

He said: "I would say that that was a misconception of commu- 
nism." . Would you say he was correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I see that ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, and it was not on a leading question, either. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Vincent, after having this truncated quota- 
tion read to him, is asked: "Now that you have heard it" — that is, 
without the part which I, the author, regard as essential — "does it 
have any connotation in your mind as being pro-Communist or anti- 
Communist?" . 

Mr. Vincent replied : " I would say that that was a misconception 
of communism." Mr. Vincent is replying in 1952 to a passage written 
in 1945, published in 1945. In other words, at a time when the entire 
situation had greatly altered. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you now say that it is a misconception of 
communism ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I would not say that. I would say that at the 
present time this kind of power of attraction of the Russians over 
neighboring people in Asia, has probably diminished in a great many 
cases. I do not know of any cases in which it may have increased. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, can you see anything in that 
paragraph that may have led the Communist Party to adopt your 
book as a background on the Communist line in having told in the 
same ad with Foster and Kahn's book. Taking your paragraph, can 
you see any reason that they may do that ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Ferguson, I have no knowledge of the proc- 
esses of the Communist mind, or why they choose my book, or any- 
body else's book as general reading. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, you have complained, as I under- 
stand, about something being read out of context. Now, the para- 
graph that you referred to as being read out of context, is a paragraph 
consisting of seven sentences, is it not? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. At least I will accept your count. 
I have not made the count myself. 

Senator Smith. You start off one of them in saying: "Here in 
America, we are in the habit of taking a narrow view of foreign 
claimants to the status of democracy." 

There is nothing in that sentence connected with any preceding 
paragraph or sentence, is there? 

Mr. Lattimore. That particular sentence, I think, is merely a state- 
ment of fact. 

Senator Smith. Well, yes. Now the next sentence is also in the 
same category, is it not? It does not refer back to anybody's eyes, 
or the eyes of any particular people ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; here the inference is very clear that I am re- 
ferring to the fact that Americans, rightly, in my opinion, do not 
reroiJfnize Russia as a democracy. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3093 

Then I go on to say — 

but we are boxing shadows if we don't realize that what the Russians have to 
offer in the most illiterate and backward parts of Asia may appear to people 
there to be democratic. If we are going to meet that attraction, we have to 
set up something that will beat the Russians' attraction. 

Senator Smith. That is not what you said in the book, is it? You 
are adding that now. 

Mr. Lattimore. It is part of the entire thread running through 
the book, Senator. 

Senator Smith. Then the complaint that you have to make against 
the committee is for not putting the whole book in, printing the whole 
book? 

Mr. Lattimore. The complaint I have is that this particular para- 
graph is so clearly related to my statement of "other peoples' opin- 
ions" that it is a quotation out of context to put it in in a manner 
that would lead the hearer, when he merely has it read to him, to 
believe that it was a statement of my opinion. 

Senator Smith. It appears to me that it would be a statement of 
your opinion. But that is a matter for construction. I suppose 
we need not waste our time on that. 

All right, you may proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. Very little has been said about me before this sub- 
committee that wasn't already in the record of the hearings before 
the Ty dings subcommittee. Most of it is just a regurgitation of the 
same vague nonsense. To refresh your memories, let me read to you 
the conclusions of the majority of that subcommittee. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Lattimore, would you indicate, please, where, 
in the hearings before this subcommittee, has been regurgitated 1,400 
pages, or any portion of it, of the Tydings' hearings ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say the Budenz testimony, and a lot of 
the rest. 

Mr. Sourwine. Are you saying that Mr. Budenz testified before 
this committee the same way that he testified before the Tydings' 
committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am saying that he regurgitated the same non- 
sense, with some additional embellishments. 

Mr. Sourwine. Since we would prefer to use more precise and 
descriptive words than your adjectives, will you answer my question, 
please ? 

Is it your statement that Mr. Budenz testified before this committee 
substantially the same as he testified before the Tydings' committee? 

Senator Smith. Can you not answer that question, whether he did 
or whether he did not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. He did and he did not. Senator. He repeated his 
Tydings' testimony, or most of it, and he added some more. I come 
to that later in my statement. 

Mr. Sour"\vine. Is it your statement, sir, that Mr. Budenz in the 
testimony before this committee, contradicted anything that he had 
said before the Tydings' committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Contradicted? 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes, sir. Did he, before this committee contradict 
himself in what he had said before the Tydings' committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't recall offhand that he did. 



3094 LNSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did he before the Tydings committee say anything 
which contradicted anything he hiter said before this committee? 

INIr. Lattimore. Before the Tydings' committee he was cross-exam- 
ined and he contradicted things he had previously said. 

Mr. SouRWixE. I wish you would answer the question, sir. 

Mr. Laitimore. Before the Tydings' committee he could hardly 
contradict something he hadn't said yet before this committee. When 
he came to this committee, he obviously had to watch his step in deal- 
ing with his previous Tydings' testimony. 

Senator Smith. I thought your complaint the other day, Mr. Latti- 
more, was that he said more than he said before the Tydings' com- 
mittee, and things differently. 

Mr. Lattimore. I deal with that later in my statement. 

Senator Smith. You did make that statement, did you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I did. 

Senator Smith. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not sure that it comes later in my statement ; I 
think it comes previously, where I deal with his testimony about 
Japan. I am not sure whether it is earlier or previously. 

This is quoting from tlie Tj^dings' committee report, pages 72 and 
73: 

Owen Lattimore is a writer and a scholar who has been charged with a record 
of procommunism going back many years. There is no legal evidence before us 
whatever to support this charge, and the weight of all other information indicates 
that it is not true * * * "We find absolutely no evidence to indicate that his 
writings and other expressions have been anything but the honest opinions and 
convictions of Owen Lattimore. Similar opinions and convictions vis-a-vis the 
Far East are entertained by many Americans, about whom no conceivable sug- 
gestion of Communist proclivities could be entertained. We do not find that Mr. 
Lattimore's writings follow the Communist or any other line, save as his very 
consistent position on the Far East may be called the Lattimore line. 

In the hearings before this subcommittee there has, however, 
been some addition to, and some subtraction from, the cast of char- 
acter. The most important subtraction is Freda Utley, who has not — 
at least not yet — ^been accorded the publicity facilities of these hear- 
ings. Miss Utley is an ex-Communist, with a record of pro-Nazi 
utterances. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you give us the data on the pro-Nazi 
utterances ? 

]\rr. LATrmoRE. I have that data in the transcript of the Tydings' 
committee hearings. Just let me see if I have it here. 

Senator Ferguson. What are you quoting from ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am quoting from a review in Catholic World by 
Leonard J. Schweitzer, of Freda Utley's the High Cost of Vengeance. 

Senator Smith. We will not accept any review, also, that you have 
a quotation from. 

Senator Ferguson. We want to know what you are quoting from. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You have already testified under oath that Miss 
Utley is an ex-Communist with a record of pro-Nazi utterances. 

We want to know what the utterances are. 

Mr. Lattimore. Let me see if I have any direct quotes here. 

Senator Ferguson. Surely you did not take that from an editorial 
of some opinion of hers ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Here is a direct quote. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. By whom ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3095 

Mr. Lattimore. A direct quote of Freda Utley, from her book, The 
High Cost of Vengeance. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you have the book ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't have the book with me. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know whether that quotation is taken out 
of context ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think it is. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is that what you are basing your charge on, that she 
has a record of pro-Nazi utterances ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am basing it on this and a number of other 
quotations. 

Senator Smith. Have you ever read the book ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes; I have. 

Senator Smith. Do you have the book ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Have we a copy with us ? 

I have a copy at home in Bahimore. I don't have it with me. 

Senator Ferguson. I suggest we wait until we get the book. 

Senator Smith. Go ahead. 

Mr. Lattimore. Before the Tydings' committee she demonstrated 
her personal animus against me. This committee hired her as a 
member of its staff, and she undoubtedly aided in recruiting witnesses 
and in rehearsing their stories. 

Mr. Sourwine. If the Chairman would pardon me, I would like 
to ask Mr. Lattimore to name one witness who was recruited by Miss 
Utley. 

Mr. Lattimore. I cannot name any witness. I have not been inside 
the proceedings of this committee. That is why I wrote "undoubt- 
edly." 

Mr. Sourwine. "What do you mean by "undoubtedly"? "Un- 
doubtedly" means "without doubt." 

Mr. Latfimore. Without doubt, in my mind. 

Mr. Sourwine. You do not say that. 

Senator Smith. You are making a statement of fact. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is clear, from the context, I think. 

Senator Smith. You still understand, Mr. Lattimore, that you are 
under oath, and you are making a statement of fact here, and now you 
have no information to back it up ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Excuse me, Senator Smith, I think I am making an 
expression of strong opinion. 

Senator Smith. That is not what we want here. We want facts, 
as we have mentioned manj^ times. 

Do you know whether or not this committee had had any witness 
recruited by Miss Utley ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is mj^ opinion 

Senator Smith. I am not asking your opinion. I am asking for 
a fact. 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not know. Senator. 

Senator Smith. I did not think you did. 

Mr. Souravine. Do you know whether Miss Utley rehearsed the 
etory of any witness before this committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I assume from the way in which some of those 
etories were presented 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know, sir ? 



3096 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know for a fact. 

Senator Smith. Then you are makinjr statements here under oath, 
that are not the truth, so far as you know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am making statements of strong opinions. 

Senator Smith. We do not want any more opinions. We want 
statements of fact. You are sworn. If you do not know a thing to 
be a fact, we do not want you to be sitting here quoting somebody 
else's opinion. You are just wasting the time of everybody. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, a great many statements of opinion against 
me have been freely entered into the record. Am I not to be allowed 
to state my own opinions ? 

Senator Smith. No; you state facts. That is what we want. If 
you do not have a foundation of fact, then do not state it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not know why she has so discreetly disappeared, 
or whether her removal is permanent. My guess is that the commit- 
tee, or its staff, must have concluded after this intimate dealing with 
her that she was too obviously erratic and unreliable, and too clearly 
an agent of the China lobby. 

Senator Smith. You are "guessing" now, are you not ? You admit 
you are guessing ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am stating it. 

Senator Smith. And you have not a particle of information in the 
■way of facts, to back that up ? 

Mr. Lai^pimore. I am making my guess. I stated it as a guess. 

I hope that some day the story will be told, which will give the 
details of this extraordinary show of circumspection. It reminds me 
of the farcical incident of the missing witness, Huber, recruited by 
Joe McCarthy, to appear before the Tydings committee. 

He was subpenaed at the request of the Wisconsin Senator — "the 
Wisconsin whimperer," who has recently shown Mr. Luce that he can 
dish it out, but he can't take it — but Huber lost his nerve at the last 
moment. I've often wondered what happened to Huber and why he 
has not been compelled to explain how he was recruited and by whom, 
and what eventually happened. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness if he 
thinks Mr. Hubei has, or has had, anything to do with this committee 
or its proceedings ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no reason to believe so, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then why do you drag him into your testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am stating the case of the witness who disap- 
peared, after McCarthy recruited him, and I am comparing it with the 
fact that Miss Utley has not appeared after the committee recruited 
her. 

Senator Smith. You think that has some place in this hearing, that 
paragraph you just read, do you? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir ; 1 have had — r- 

Senator Smith. As a statement of fact? 

Mr. Lattimore. As a statement of opinion. 

Senator Smith. I say "as a statement of fact" do you contend that 
is a fact? 

Mr, Lattimore. "WHiat is a fact? 

Senator Smith. What you have stated in that paragraph. You 
know what I am talking about, Mr. Lattimore. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3097 

Mr. Lattimore. Excuse me, sir. The discussion has gone on over 
several subjects, and I am not quite sure what fact you are referring to. 

Senator Smith. I am asking you about that paragraph you just 
read. Did you introduce that as a statement of fact ? Do you under- 
stand that? 

Mr. Lattimore. The statement of fact that Huber was recruited by 
McCarthy, that he later lost his nerve and disappeared, and so on? 
Yes, I state that as a matter of fact. 

Senator Smith. I am talking about what is in the paragraph, that 
whole paragraph, is that a statement of fact ? 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my belief, it is, Senator. 

Senator Smith. All right ; go ahead. 

Mr. Lattimore. Among the additions to the Tydings list I have 
already dealt in some detail with Mr. Dooman and Mr. Stassen, and 
have referred to the novel ideas of Mr. Colegrove and Mr. McGovern^ 
concerning my alleged recommendations about Japan. 

I should now like to turn to the testimony of Barmine and FittfogeL 

General BaiTnine, of course, is an ex-Communist. So is Wittfogel. 
Your chairman, Senator McCarran, has indicated that this makes 
them especially credible witnesses. 

Senator Smith. On what do you base that, your charge against 
Chairman McCarran ? Is that some more opinion of yours ? 

Mr, Lattimore. That is not a charge against Senator McCarran^ 
Senator Smith. 

Senator Smith. Is that backed up with facts, or is that mere opinion 
of yours ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a reference to Senator McCarran's introduc- 
tory remarks, at the beginning of the hearings of this subcommittee. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. It is your interpretation of those remarks, is it not, 
sir? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I read the remarks ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Is it your interpretation of those remarks or a di- 
rect quote ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is not printed here as a direct quote. I would 
have to look through it to see whether the words "specially credible 
witnesses" do appear there directly. 

Senator Smith, Or whether Senator McCarran indicated. You 
say there "Your chairman, Senator McCarran, has indicated that this 
makes them" — that is, the fact that they are ex-Communists — "espe- 
cially credible witnesses." 

Mr. Lattimore. The chairman stated : 

In such an investigation as this, where a possible conspiracy is being exam- 
ined, very often the only evidence obtainable derives from persons who once 
participated in the conspiracy. 

I think my words here are a warrantable characterization of that, 
Mr. SouRwiNE. And the Senator went on : 

Only eyes that witnessed the deeds, and ears that heard the words of intrigue, 
can attest thereto. Thus, ex-Communists, and agents of the Government who 
posed as Communists, often are the only sources of evidence of what transpired 
behind doors, closed to the non-Communist world. 

Do you think there is anything in that that has anything to do with 
the credibility of an ex-Communist as a witness ? 



3098 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that it is a fair inference of mine to state 
that Senator McCarran has indicated that these make them especially 
credible witnesses. 

ISIr. SouRwiNE. Do you not see any difference between availability 
and credibility? 

Your shrug does not get into the record. 

Mr, Lattimore. This is more lawyer language, Mr. Sourwine. I 
wrote what I thought. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think "availability" and "credibility" are 
legal terms, which require a legal definition? You used that word 
"credibility" — it is your word, as you said the other day. What do 
you mean by it ? 

Mr, Lattimore. I was referring to credibility and not availability, 
and I think that my opinion there is supported by what has just been 
read from Senator McCarran 's introductory statement. 

Mr. Sourwine. What did you mean by the word "credibility"? 

Mr. Lattimore, I meant that the committee would believe them. 

Mr, Sourwine. And you think that Senator McCarran is saying 
here that ex-Communists are especially entitled to be believed? 

Mr, Lattimore, That was the impression that I got. 

Mr, Sourwine, Do you still get that impression, now that we have 
been over the language again ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I still do. 

Senator Smith. So you still say that Senator McCarran has indi- 
cated that? 

Mr, Lattimore. In my opinion, he has indicated. 

Senator Smith. I am asking you for a statement of fact, Mr. Latti- 
more. You seem to dodge behind your opinions. You seem to forget 
that you are under oath to testify to the truth here. 

Now, do you still say that Senator McCarran has indicated that 
this makes them specially credible witnesses ? 

Mr, Lattimore, What I am clearly stating there is my opinion, that 
Senator McCarran has so stated. 

Senator Smith, All right, 

Mr, Lattimore. I should have assumed the contrary: that a man 
who has spent his life in the Communist school of lies, deceit, and 
intrigue, should always be suspect. But Senator McCarran would 
apparently regard that view as proof of Communist tendencies. 

Barmine was a Eed army general. 

Senator Smith. He admitted, did he not, that he was Red ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, he did. That is my authority for making this 
statement. 

His testimony was that another Red general told him that I was a 
Soviet agent in China. This was not entirely new, since Senator Mc- 
Carthy liad quoted Barmine in his attack on me in March 1950, and 
then dropped him. 

After reading the transcript of Barmine's flimsy testimony before 
your committee, I wonder if this use of fantasy and hallucination to 
establish guilt is not more worthy of the Kremlin than of the United 
States Senate, 

Mr, Sourwine, Mr. Lattimore, have you at any point in the prepa- 
ration of til is statement deliberately sought to be contemptuous of 
this committee, and/or the Senate of "the United States ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3099 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir; I have deliberately sought to express a 
feeling of indignation and outrage against the treatment I have 
received. 

Senator Smith. Wliat treatment do you refer to from this com- 
mittee, so far as this committee is concerned, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. I refer to the admission of the kind of evidence that 
has been heaped against me without a word of cross-examination, to 
test the reliability or credibility of the witnesses. 

Senator Smith. Is that all you have to say on that ? All right. 

Mr. Lattimore. Barmine was a conspicuously reluctant witness be- 
fore 3'ou, and in spite of leading questions by Mr. Morris and members 
of this committee, and their repeated efforts to aid him in remember- 
ing conversations and events between him and other Reds, supposed 
to have taken place 15 or 18 years ago, his answers remained vague, 
apologetic, and full of qualifications. 

Barmine said that the other Red general, named Berzin, in a dis- 
cussion of the possibility of opening Soviet intelligence branches along 
tlie China coast, mentioned me and Joseph Barnes as "our men," 
whatever that means, in connection with the possible use of IPR per- 
sonnel in China. 

Here Barmine made two slips. He referred to this discussion as 
taking place at the end of 1933 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, if I might interrupt there, because 
of that date, would the witness indicate at what point in the transcript 
of the testimony Mr. Barmine said that this discussion took place at 
the end of 1933? It is the understanding of the committee staff that 
Mr. Barmine said it took place in 1935. 

Senator Smith. Will you point that out? 

Mr, Lattimore. That is taken up in the rest of the paragraph. 

Senator Smith. Can you point that out? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is referring to the fact that a correction was 
made later and therefore doubtless it doesn't appear in the final 
transcript of the committee. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. You mean a correction in the testimony of Mr. 
Barmine, sir? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Are you intending to state or imply that this com- 
mittee has doctored the transcript of Mr. Barmine's testimony in 
publication ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether the committee or its staff 
doctored the testimony, or whether Barmine made a request to alter 
his testimony, or what happened, 

Mr. Sourwine. Are you making the charge that it was altered? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am making the charge that, if I may go on with 
the rest of the paragraph — I think it explains it clearly, 

Mr. Sourwine, I think you should answer that right now, sir. Are 
you making the charge that the testimony was altered after having 
been given, that the transcript was changed for whatever reason after 
the testimony had been taken clown ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am making the charge that newspapermen who 
called me after the story — that newspapermen called me after the story 
appeared and Barmine's story was mysteriously up-dated in later 
editions of the evening papers. 



3100 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Smith. What newspapermen called you? Let us get that 
fact now. 

JNIr. Lattimore. The man who called me was, as I remember, the 
United Press man, United Press desk mail, in Baltimore. 

Senator Smith. What was his name? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember his name. 

Senator Smith. Who else called you, a newspaperman? 

Mr. Lattimore. He was the only one — no, there may have been a 
Baltimore Sun man who called me, too. 

Senator Smith. You do not know who that was ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't. 

Mr. SouRwiNE, Were you here when Mr. Barmine was testify- 
ing, sir? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I wasn't. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You make the definite statement here, and a state- 
ment you are offering this committee under oath, that he, meaning 
Barmine, referred to this discussion as taking place at the end of 1933. 
Do you know that to be so ? 

Mr. Lattimore, I am making reference to the fact that two different 
newspaper stories appeared. 

Senator Smith. You do not know it of your own knowledge? Just 
answer my question, do you know it of your knowledge or not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, I don't know it of my own knowledge. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you read the record of Mr. Barmine's testi- 
mony at that point ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I have. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know what that record shows? 

Mr. Lattimore. As the record now stands, it doesn't show 1933. 

Mr. Sourwine. Wliat does it show ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not — I would have to read it again to re- 
fresh my memory, but my impression is that it doesn't show very 
clearly what yeai . 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you mean, sir, that you are stating here, on the 
basis of what one or two newspapermen, according to you, told you, 
that the testimony of this witness was different from what the record 
which you have read shows it to have been? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not what newspapermen told me, I am basing 
it on newspaper clips. 

Mr. Sourwine. Are you testifying here on the basis of newspaper 
clips — if you please, Mr. Lattimore — are you testifying here on the 
basis of newspaper clips that the testimony of Mr. Barmine was 
actually different from what the record before this committee shows 
it to have been? 

;Mr. Lattimore. I am testifying that after the story appeared, I was 
called for comment because 1933 was mentioned and I said "Wliy, 
my goodness, in 1933 I had nothing to do with the Institute of Pacific 
Relations." And the later stories carried the date 1935 or 1936. 

Mr. Sourwine. And are you presuming to conclude from that that 
the record of this committee was changed, rather than accepting the 
possibility that a newspaperman might have been mistaken? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't say that, Mr. Sourwine. 

IVIr. Sourwine. What do you say, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I say that when I pointed out to newspapermen 
who called me after the story appeared 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3101 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Pointed out what ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That in 1933 I had no connection with the In- 
stitute of Pacific Relations, and that I was in the United States 
and not in China from 1933 to the autumn of 1934, after this, after 
I had been called on this point, Barmine's story was mysteriously 
up-dated in later editions. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Of the evening papers, is that not what you said? 

Mr. Lattimore. Either the evening papers or the morning papers, 
I can't recollect now. 

Senator Smith. How about the rest of the sentence, to refer to 
1935 or 1936 ? You do not know now whether it was 1935 or 1936, do 
you? 

Mr. Lattimore. The record reads, page 194 of the printed record, 
that Mr. Barmine said that he was appointed to the presidency 
of some trust that he was working for at the end of 1933. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the witness^ 
interpretation of what the record says is of any particular value 
here. 

If he has a portion of that record which he believes establishes 
his contention that Mr. Barmine said 1933, I think he should offer 
that portion of the record and let it go in now. 

Mr. Fortas. Mr. Chairman, will you give a witness a minute to 
look at the record, since there is a question about the record? 

Senator Smith. I thought we had it there. 

Mr. Fortas. He hasn't had a chance to look at it since he has been 
asked the question. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore do you have in your possession, I 
mean for your own use, a copy of that transcript ? 

]VIr. Lattimore. Yes, I do. 

Senator Smith. Then I am going to suggest that if you can find 
any justification or statement about the 1933 and will send it out 
any time within the next 10 days, we will look it over and see it. 
That is to save time. 

All right, Mr. Sourwine, have you some other questions? 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes, I have one more question. 

Mr. Lattimore, you stated and stressed the fact that you had no 
connection with the IPR until 1934. As a matter of fact, did you 
not attend the IPR conference in 1933 ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I attended it as a delegate. I was not an em- 
ployee, no. 

Mr. Sourwine. You think the attendance at that conference was 
not a connection with IPR ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I will accept your amendment, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Were you ever an employee of IPR ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was an employee of IPR from the beginning 
of 1934. 

Mr. Sourwine. Until when ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Until 1941. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are speaking now of your connection with 
the magazine Pacific Affairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. As editor of that magazine, you were an em- 
ployee of IPR? 

88348— 52— pt. 9 14 



3102 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I was an employee of the Pacific Council of the 
IPR, not the American IPR. 

Senator Smith. You may proceed. 

Mr. Lattimore. Barmine also said our names had been suggested 
because they needed men who had "military training" (p. 1933). I 
have had no military experience whatever, and I doubt if Barnes 
had, either. When Senator Eastland asked him, "Just exactly what 
did he say about Mr. Lattimore?" Mr. Barmine answered eva- 
sively, "You see, I want to emphasize that this project which was 
finally never realized by me was only a very small part of the prepa- 
ration. This was 15 or 16 years ago — to tell you exactly what words, 
I would not like to say anything I don't remember very firmly." 
Again, how vague can testimony be and still be permitted to be used 
to blacken a man's name? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Will you read that sentence again, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. The last one ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. Again, how vague can testimony be and still be 
permitted to be used to blacken a man's name ? 

Mr. Sourwin:^. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. Since everything about Barmine's General Berzin 
sounds rather fishy I tried to look him up on Barmine's book One 
Who Survived. Sprinkled all through this book, in both the original 
French version and the American version, which seems to have been 
stepped up considerably for local consumption, are a great many 
names of important Russians with whom Barmine claimed to have 
rubbed shoulders. One name that is entirely missing in both ver- 
sions is that of General Berzin. Yet in his testimony Barmine makes 
a great deal of Berzin as a real big shot under whom he worked for 
15 years. Why does he mention him here for the first time? Inci- 
dentally, neither version of Barmine's book, of course, mentions Jo- 
seph Barnes or Owen Lattimore or the IPR. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, might I ask one brief question? 

Senator Smith. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Lattimore, do you know if there was a Gen- 
eral Berzin? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no idea. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Go ahead. 

Mr. Lattimore. Barmine also stated that a General Krivitsky in 
Paris in 1938 corroborated Berzin's statement about Barnes and me. 
General Krivitsky also wrote a book and testified before the House 
Un-American Activities Committee in 1938. In neither place did 
he mention my name. Nor did he mention Joseph Barnes or the IPR. 
Wliat is more significant, he did not mention either the Red gen- 
erals, Berzin or Barmine. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I inquire once more, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Smith. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Lattimore, did you use research methods to 
endeavor to ascertain whether there was a General Berzin ? 

Mr. Laitimore. No, sir, there are no research methods at my dis- 
posal to determine that fact. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Did you make your best efforts to determine whether 
there was a General Berzin ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Having no means, I made no efforts. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3103 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Go ahead, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. In short, Barmine's testimony can best be described 
in the Avords of Barmine. When Senator Ferguson asked him whether 
(he FBI had the "evidence" that he had just given about Barnes and 
Lattimore, he said, "Well, if you call it evidence — " (p. 211). 

It reminds me of a little story in Barmine's book, which I submit 
herewith as an exhibit, describing how a Soviet military intelligence 
agent, when he takes a powder and runs out of the Soviet police 
state, hires out as an expert on Soviet skulduggery and, when he 
runs out of real information, has to invent a lot of new stuff in order 
to stay in the racket. It reads to me like a very good description of 
Barmine himself as well as of his native American counterpart, 
Budenz. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What book are you referring to, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Here, Barmine's book, One Who Survived. 

I would like to hand up at this moment a copy of the relevant part 
of the text of Barmine's book. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Have you read that book ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I have. 

Senator Smith. That will be submitted subject to the Chairman 
passing on it when he goes over it. 

(The material referred to was marked exhibit 475 and appears in 
the appendix on p. 3704.) 

Mr. Lattimore. I turn now to the other ex-Communist, Karl 
August Wittfogel. In his testimony Wittfogel tried to creat two 
impressions — that in the early years of our acquaintance we were 
friendly with each other on the basis of mutual Communist sympa- 
thies, and that after he finally stopped being a Communist, in 1939, 
he broke off relations with me. Both of these pictures, drawn by Witt- 
fogel's inventive hindsight, are maliciously false. 

I first knew Dr. Wittfogel in Peking in 1935 and 1936. He has at- 
tempted to show that at this time I knew he was a Communist and 
must therefore have been one myself. He does not claim that he ever 
told me he had been or was still a Communist. I did not consider him 
one. He had been rescued from Hitler's Germany by a committee of 
British scholars, an active member of which was the distinguished 
authority on economic history, K. H. Tawney, a stanch anti-Com- 
munist. 

The flimsy statements by which Wittfogel attempted to show that 
I knew he was a Communist are complete nonsense. The chief one 
is a story that in my presence Dr. Woodbridge Bingham had asked 
him if he had ever been a Communist and he said "No." He then tried 
to suggest that I flashed him a smile implying that I knew that what he 
really meant was that he was a Communist. The truth is that I have 
not the faintest recollection of this whole conversation, but if I smiled 
at all, it was certainly a non-Communist smile. Now I would be will- 
ing to believe that Communists have an arsenal of secret signals, but 
I would never suppose that it included anything as good-natured as 
a smile. In fact, I though that these grim conspirators regarded a 
smile as a bourgeois gesture — practically as an enemy of the state. 
If I am wrong, and if a smile is a secret Red signal, I confess that I 
used to smile a good deal. In the pre-McCarthy days I used to think 
that life was lots of fun. 



3104 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Smith. May I ask you a question there ? Were you present 
"when Wittf ogel testified in this room ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Smith. Did you have any representative present ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Let me ask my wife whether she was there. 

She was there. 

Senator Smith. You knew when he was going to testify, did you 
not? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it was announced in the paper. 

Wittf ogel also made the ridiculous assertion that the fact that I 
used the terms "feudal' 'and "feudal survival" in describing Asiatic 
societies showed that I was a Communist. His claim that these terms 
are nothing but litmus papers for telling Communists from non- 
Communists is ridiculous. It sounds like an echo from the religious 
disputes and persecutions of the Middle Ages, when professing Chris- 
tians put each other to death in quarrels over the difference between 
"transsubstantiation" and "consubstantiation." 

On this rather absurd subject Wittf ogel specifically charges that in 
a book published last year, Pivot of Asia, I dropped my academic 
disguise and let the heretical truth leak out: I referred to "semi- 
feudal" relations in the Chinese Central Asian province of Sinkiang. 
It is quite true that I used the phrase, and it was an accuate descrip- 
tion. I am sorry that I did not know that the Communists had a 
patent on the term, and that to use it was as dangerous as it is to smile» 

If the use of terms like "feudal survival' 'is a test of communism 
the following quotation may be of interest. It is from the American 
Anthropologist, July-September 1951, page 403, and is from a review 
of a book about Japan : 

But here (in Japan) as in Germany, industrialization was so late and so rapid 
that many feudal elements survived. 

The author who thus uses the hideous and forbidden expression 
"feudal elements" is Esther S. Goldfrank (Mrs. Karl-August Witt- 
fogel). I hasten to say I know nothing of her political views, and in 
any event I wouldn't accuse Wittfogel of anything on account of his 
association with his wife. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Then, Mr. Lattimore, would you tell the committee, 
please, why you dragged Mrs. Wittfogel in ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Because I think it is a pertinent illustration of the 
absurd nonsense of Wittfogel's talk about semi-feudalism and feudal 
survival, and so on. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Have you read the review by Mrs. Wittfogel whick 
you quote here ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have not read the full review, no. 

Mr. SouRWiNE., You quote one sentence out of context, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I quote one sentence which here I think is a com- 
plete statement of the problem, and therefore can be considered in 
context. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know, and if so will you assert, whether 
Mrs. Wittfogel is making that statement as her own or as a summariza- 
tion of what was said in the book that she reviewed ? 

Mr. LATriMORE. I couldn't answer that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You do not know, do you ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3105 

Mr. Lattimore. Have you any data on that? 

Mr. SouKWiNE. The question is. Do you know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Now, not knowing, you have yet presented the letter 
for this committee as though it were her own opinion, is that not 
correct ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have presented it as a quotation from a review by 
Mrs. Wittfogel. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You think that is an adequate answer to the ques- 
tion, sir? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do. 

Mr. Sourwine. And you have so presented it without having seen 
the whole review ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lattimore. There is one clear, unequivocal aspect of Wittf ogel's 
testimony that demonstrates that he was lying either about me or about 
his own severance of Communist affiliation. Wittfogel stated defi- 
nitely twice that he finally broke all Communist connections in the 
summer of 1939. I have in my possession many long letters which 
show clearly that he remained on friendly terms with me for 8 years 
thereafter — that is, until 1947. If he told the truth about his separa- 
tion from communism in 1939 he must have continued to think of me 
as non-Communist, at least until 1947, when we had our last exchange 
of correspondence. 

Many very friendly letters which he wrote to me in 1940 and 1941 
contain such phrases as "the warmest greetings to all of you," "I am so 
happy to see you soon here," "yours in friendship," "your new book — 
looks fine and it reads fine," "Love to all of you, when do we meet ? " — 
none of which sound as if I were a Communist he had finally broken 
with in 1939. 

In an undated letter in 1941, Wittfogel wrote to me as follows: 

During this weelf end I have reread your Inner Asian Frontiers and McGovern. 
The reading of the two boolis made it clear again to me how absolutely superior 
your analysis and presentation is not only to his — he is a dwarf — but to prac- 
tically everybody who has ventured into an analysis of Wirtschaft and Gesell- 
Bchaft of the oasis. Tour analysis really seem definite and classic. I shall 
follow it for whatever I may be able to write about the Asiatic Oases. I hope 
to be not too stupid a disciple. 

During the war, from 1941 through 1944, 1 had very little time for 
correspondence with anyone, but, in a letter to me dated March 4, 1945, 
praising my book Solution in Asia, he wrote — and this is the same 
book I will call to your attention that Senator Ferguson has suggested 
has some sort of Communist coloration — he wrote : 

I have delayed writing my weekly Sunday letters for hours because I could, 
not tear myself away from your Asiatic Solution. By watching my action, not 
my words, you can judge how great the power of attraction of your new book is. 
You are really an expert to end all experts. I have not read anything for a long 
time, that made me think so much about the various aspects of the postwar 
world. This is a fascinating story, one, which, I hope, will be read much and 
intensely, because you certainly show that the political leaders have to act 
quickly, wisely, and boldly, or else — But I am sure, you are right, as solid a 
peace has to be made as possible in this most artfully balanced of all worlds. 
The breath-taking picture of a world dancing ballet on a swinging tight rope 
emerged clearly from your masterly pen. 



3106 mSTITUTB OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

This is the letter that Wittfogel tried to bypass in his testimony, 
saying that he had barely looked at the book and wrote me a nice not© 
just to be polite. I submit all of these letters in full for your record. 

Senator Smith. We will receive those, subject to the Chairman's 
permission. 

(For the letters referred to see exhibits 597 A, B, C, D, pp. 3611 
through 3614.) 

Mr. Lattimore. From this time until 1947 Wittfogel remained 
friendly, and even when we had some differences of opinion he did 
not suggest that he thought me pro-Communist in any way. 

During 1947 we had a disagreement over his invitation to me, at the 
end of 1946, to write an introduction to his History of Chinese Society : 
LIAO. I asked him to be allowed to read the book before writing 
the introduction, and I am afraid that I indicated that I would not 
write an introduction without being given a chance to form my own 
opinion about the work I was supposed to sponsor in this way. This 
entirely reasonable request didn't seem to suit Wittfogel and after 
several letters I heard no more from him. 

My guess about the matter is that Wittfogel staged this little ma- 
neuver because, with the mounting China Lobby attacks on the IPE. 
for harboing Communists, with constant reiteration of the familiar 
Kohlberg attacks on me, he was becoming alarmed about his own con- 
cealed Communist connections, and decided that he had better join 
the pack rather than run the risk of being destroyed by it. Senator 
McCarran's indication, at the opening of these hearings, that if ex- 
Communists informed on other people all would be forgiven, pro- 
vided this tortured man Wittfogel with a perfect avenue to the new 
social security. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a few questions ? 

Senator Smith. Yes. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. One question I would like to ask is this: Do you 
believe that Communists or former Communists are performing a 
service for the United States when they come forward and testify? 

Mr. Latiimore. Mr. Sourwine, I believe that the kind of informa- 
tion about the inside workings of the Communist Party that can be 
obtained by ex-Communists, by FBI agents passing as Communists 
in the Communist Party, and so on, is absolutely essential to our secu- 
rity. I believe that there are probably ex-Communists who are of 
great value. 

But I believe that it is a great temptation to the ex-Communist to 
market his wares at more than their true value, and to go on purport- 
ing to give testimony when he has exhausted his real testimony. 

Therefore, I believe that it is extremely necessary, especially in 
pubic hearings, where people, not only people's reputation but their 
livelihood is affected, that there should be the severest testing of the 
credibility of any ex-Communist used, and the validity of his 
testimony. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, I think in justice to you one matter 
should be shown. You are bilingual ; are you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, bilingual usually means equally versed in two 
languages. 

]\fr. SouRAviNE. Then let me say are you multilingual, do you have 
several languages at your command? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have several of them that I speak, none of them 
as well as I sjjeak English, of course. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3107 

Mr. SouRWiMK. What are they, sir? 

Mr. Lattimore. I speak Chinese very well. I speak Mongol pretty 
well. I speak French enough to get along. I speak German enough to 
stammer along, and to understand other people's conversation, and I 
have a reading knowledge of Russian, a considerable remnant of a 
reading knowledge of Latin, and a few tattered remnants of a reading 
knowledge of Greek. I could also at one time read Swedish, but I am 
out of practice now. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you have access to a Soviet encyclopedia or a 
"Who's Who"? 

Mr. Lattimore. There is a copy of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia 
in the library at Johns Hopkins. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you check it or have it checked to find out 
whether General Berzin was mentioned therein ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't. 

Mr. SouR\viNE. Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a paper. I would 
like to ask Mr. Mandel what it is. 

Mr. IVL^NDEL. This is a translation submitted by the Library of 
Congress in reference to Ian Antonovich Berzin, and it is a transla- 
tion from volume 5, pages 626-627 of the Soviet Encyclopedia, 1927. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I offer this for the record. 

Senator Smith. You may read it. 

Mr. Sour WINE. Very well. 

Senator Smith. This is in English? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith. Eead it, then. 

Mr. SouRWixE. The names I may mispronounce as they are Russian 
names. It reads as follows: 

ElsHiBiT 474 

Translation 

[Translation from vol. V, col. 626-627 of the Bol'shaia Sovetskaia Entsiklopediia, Moscow, 

19271 

Berzin, Ian Antonovich ("Pavel Vasil'evitcli," "Zemelis," "Vinter") born in 
18S1, Communist party-worker. He hails from a peasant family in the Livonian 
Province. As a village teacher he conducted revolutionary activities among the 
peasants. He joined the Social Democratic Party of Latvia in 1902. In 1904 
he was arrested and banished to the Olonets Province from which he escaped in 
1905. During the 1905 revolution Berzin was active as a propagandist and 
agitator in the Baltic region. He was arrested by a punitive detachment of Gen- 
eral Orlov in December 1905. Upon his release from prison in 1907 Berzin worked 
in Petersburg as secretary of the Committee of the Russian Social Democratic 
Workers' Party. At the same time he was elected as a delegate to the London 
Congress. He emigrated in 1908, lived in Switzerland, France, Belgium, England, 
and in the United States, working in various party organizations, became editor 
and collaborator of the Latvian organs of Bolshevik orientation (such as the 
central organ of the Social Democrats of Latvia "Tsinia" and others). In 1915 
he took part in the Zimmerwald Conference and in the founding of the "Zimmer- 
wald Left." In 1916 and 1917 he was editor of the Latvian Social Democratic 
newspaper "Stradneks" in Boston and of the Russian left wing— internationalist 
newspaper "Novyi Mir" (The New World) in New York. In 1917 he was elected 
at the Sixth Congress as a member of the Central Committee of the Russian 
Social Democratic Workers' Party (of Bolsheviks) and of the Central Com- 
mittee of the Social Democrats of Latvia. At the Second Congress of the Soviets 
he was elected member of the All-Union Central Executive Committee. In 1918 
he was appointed Plenipotentiary Representative to Switzerland, and in 1919 
People's Commissar of Instruction for Latvia. From 1919 to 1920 he was secre- 
tary of the Comintern. In 1920 he headed the delegation for peace negotiations 



3108 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

with Finland and afterwards he became Plenipotentiary Representative to Fin- 
land. From 1921 to 1925 he was attached to the Embassy in England. Since 
August 1925 he has been the Plenipotentiary Representative of the U. S. S, R. 
in Austria. Berzin's literai-y works, chiefly in the Latvian language, encompass 
a great variety of fields ranging from politics to problems of cultural and art 
criticism. 

Mr. Lattimore. Does it mention he is a pal of Barmine's ? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. This is from the Soviet dictionary of 1927, sir, as 
previously stated. It is offered in the record, Mr. Chairman, for the 
purpose of showing that there was such a person as Berzin. 

Senator Smith. All right ; go ahead. 

(The material referred to was marked exhibit 474 and was read in 
full by counsel.) 

Mr. Lattimore. I have now disposed of the charges against me per- 
sonally. But I am also concerned with something of far greater im- 
portance — the fate of the far-eastern policy of our country. 

The threat of sabotage to our far-eastern policy transcends the inter- 
est of the individual citizen. For more than a quarter of a century 
I have been openly printing, publishing, and stating in public lec- 
tures exactly what I think about a wide range of problems. My field 
has been the Far East in general, more specifically China, and still more 
specifically the border lands between China and Russia. The record 
shows that I have never consistently agreed with any ideology, school 
of thought, group, trend, or individual. I have at times changed my 
own opinions, but only on the basis of changed conditions, more ma- 
ture consideration, or additional data ; never because of being hypno- 
tized, intimidated, or bought. 

I do not find it surprising, or anything to be ashamed of, that I 
have at times made mistakes. But, whatever the mistakes I have made, 
I have never tried to deliver the policy of my country into the hands 
of a foreign power, as the Communists have tried to deliver it to 
the Soviet Union, and the China lobby is trying to deliver it into the 
hands of Chiang Kai-shek. 

On the record of the situation in China and changes in American 
policy toward China, the issue. Senators, is not one of domestic poli- 
tics, or McCarthy's reelection, or of who will benefit, politically or 
otherwise, from denunciation of me, Mr. Vincent, or others. The great 
issue is what about China ? Are we on the right track ? Or has United 
States policy been affected by disloyal or subversive persons? 

When discussing China, it is of crucial importance to put events into 
their proper perspective in history. I ask you, Senators, if you are 
interested in facts, kindly to allow them to be presented in the context 
of their time. If you do not, the result will not be clarification but a 
continuation of the distortion and confusion that have characterized 
your inquiry to date. 

There have been malicious and pointless attempts to prove that I 
and other misrepresented the Chinese Communists as "different" from, 
the Russians, or as mere "agrarian radicals." It was proved before 
the Tydings committee that I never did. Neither, I believe, did the 
career far-eastern experts of the State Department. But I offer you, 
for the record, an exhibit showing that Gen. Pat Hurley ; Freda Utley, 
of the China Lobby; and Hallett Abend, of the New York Times, did 
say that the Chinese Communists were not real Communists. Now, 
here again, it would be utter nonsense to suggest that this is a sign of 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3109 

communism or procommunism. The judgment that Patrick Hurley, 
for example, expressed about the Chinese Communists was a perfectly 
possible conclusion for a man to arrive at honestly at that time. He 
may have been wrong — but he was not attempting to distort the facts 
or subvert his country. 

May I hand in here these quotations that I have just referred to, 
Senator? 

Senator Smith. They will be received, subject to the decision of the 
chairman for insertion in the record. 

(For the material referred to, see exhibit 476 in appendix I of pt. 
10, p. 3705.) 

Mr, Lattimore. One of the principal targets of the China Lobby's 
criticism in the controversy about the history of our Chinese policy 
has been the proposal for a coalition between the Nationalists and the 
Communists — or more properly for a working arrangement between 
the two, in order to avoid a civil war in which, as informed observers 
knew and as events proved, the Chiang government would be bound 
to lose. Even General Marshall's motives have been assailed by the 
China Lobby because he advocated this, in spite of the fact that it is 
a matter of record that this policy was first sponsored by Secretary of 
State Byrnes, who has never been attacked for it and should not be. 

It is nonsense to say, as had been dogmatically asserted before this 
committee, that coalition or cooperation with Communists always 
ends with the Communists taking over. 

The Free French cooperated with the Communists, and the Commu- 
nists did not take over France. Today about a third of the French 
Deputies are Communists. 

The postwar Government of Burma began as a coalition with Com- 
munists, but the Communists were later expelled and armed action 
taken against them. 

The Indonesian Nationalist movement began as a united front with 
Communists, but the Indonesian Government has since taken armed 
action to suppress them. 

The British cooperated during the war with Indian Commimifits, 
but the Communists did not take over India. 

In saying this I do not want to be misunderstood as advocating 
collaboration with Communists. This is always dangerous — as dan- 
gerous as a partnership with a bear. It should be tolerated only 
where there is no alternative. My point is only that coalition is not 
necessarily surrender, and that coalition may reasonably be advo- 
cated in particular circumstances by persons whose sole objective is 
the ultimate defeat of communism. 

In China too the idea of coalition and compromise was not a foolish 
idea dreamed up in Washington. There was a solid basis for the 
view that a coalition was the only alternative to the certain triumph 
of communism. And there was a solid basis for the hope that it might 
give the non-Communist groups time to reorganize, and eventually to 
oust the Communists. 

If I may make an interpolation here, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to change "eventually to oust the Communists" so as to read "and 
eventually to dominate the situation." 

The reason I suggest the change is that at that time, that is, right 
at the end of the war, the precedence of the ousting of the Commu- 



3110 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

nists for the French and Italian Governments had not yet been estab- 
lished, and it might seem as if I were claiming a little too much prec- 
edence by talking in the thing in the context of 1945. 

Senator Jenner. May I ask a question ? 

You say that the Chiang government was bound to lose if the 
civil war was started. Did the Nationalists have more troops than 
the Communists, or fewer? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am not quite sure of what you said. 

Senator Jexner. Did the Nationalists have more troops? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; but before that you said 

Senator Jenner. You said the Chiang government was bound to 
lose if the civil war was started. 

Mr. Lattimore. If the civil war was started. No. 

Senator Jenner. Well, at this particular time in history, did the 
Nationalists have more troops than the Communists, or fewer troops? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe they had a good many more. 

Senator Jenner. Were the Communist troops trained for other than 
guerrilla war? 

Mr. Lattimore. That I am not sure of to answer that question. 

Senator Jenner. Was Under Secretary Acheson correct on June 19, 
1946, when he testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee 
that Chiang had four times as many troops as the Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. Presumably he was right. I don't have the figures 
to check it. 

Senator Jenner. Was he correct when he said that the Commu- 
nists needed American minimum training, and I quote from him, 
and niinimum quantities of equipment, needed American military 
training and minimum quantities of equpment? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know about that. Senator. 

Senator Smith. Are you sure you mean the Communists and not 
the Nationalists? 

Senator Jenner. He said that. That is the record of June 1946. 
What I want to bring out is how could the Communists have won 
without Russia's help if the Nationalists had four times the number 
of troops that the Communists did? How could they have possibly 
won without the Communist help ? 

Mr. Lattimore. A recent British authority on the subject said that 
they had two invaluable allies, the Chinese Communists, that one was 
•Chiang Kai-shek and the other was the Republican Party of the 
United States. 

Senator Jenner. Thank you very much. 

^Ir. Lattimore. I can give you the exact reference. The book is 
called Asia and the West. 

Senator Smith. Who wrote that? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is by a man named Maurice Zinkin, a former 
member of the Indian Civil Service, who now represents a large cor- 
poration in India. 

Senator Jenner. Then it was the Republican Party that withheld 
the aid to Chiang's Nationalist Government; is that right? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think the author. I have quoted was making a 
satirical reference to the fact that, as the civil war drew to a closei 
with the Nationalists being steadily defeated, the fact that the Na- 
tionalists were receiving American arms resulted in transferring to 
the Communists in China the idea of nationalism so that the nation- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3111 

alist idea was captured away from the Nationalists by the Ck)mmu- 
nists. 

Senator Jenner. And then it was the Republican Party that sent 
General Marshall to China with his mission ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, we have to talk here in terms of context. 

Senator Jenner. You gave me an answer ; you said two things, the 
invaluable aid of Chiang and the Republican Party. I want to find 
out if the Republican Party sent General Marshall over to force Chiang 
Kai-shek to form a united government to take the Communists into 
his Republic and into his army. 

Senator Smith. If it is available, he should be able to give it. 

Senator Jenner. It is available. He made the answer of the two 
invaluable things. 

Mr. Lattimore. The Republican Party did not send General Mar- 
 shall to China. He was sent by the administration. 

But if I may amend the way you put the question, Senator, I 
would suggest that General Marshall was not sent to force Chiang 
Kai-shek to accept the Communists. 

Senator Jenner. What was the result of General Marshall's mis- 
sion? 

Mr. Lattimore. The result of General Marshall's mission was that 
he failed to negotiate a compromise in China. 

Senator Jenner. After being there how long? 

Mr. Lattimore. Let me see, about 1 year, I think. 

Senator Jenner. He talked a little bit longer than they are talking 
in Korea. They are talking 8 months in Korea, and he talked a little 
longer than that, is that right ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I accept your statement. 

Senator Jenner. What was the report that he brought back to this 
country ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The report that he brought back was that his at- 
tempts at negotiation had been defeated primarily by the intransi- 
gents on both sides. 

Senator Jenner. During this period of time, the Republican Party, 
had they failed to vote appropriations to help Chiang Kai-shek? 

Mr, Lattimore. I couldn't answer you on the record. 

Senator Jenner. Was the money that was appropriated by us used, 
was the intent of Congress used to help Chiang Kai-shek in his fight 
against the Communists? Was it used? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that General Chiang was not short of 
munitions. 

Senator Jenner. And at the time General Marshall arrived in 
China, the Nationalists had four times the number of troops as the 
Communists had? 

Mr. Lattimore. And were already being warned by General Wede- 
meyer not to overextend themselves. 

Senator Jenner. And yet your answer to these facts is that the 
Republican Party and General Chiang Kai-shek caused the downfall 
of the Nationalist Government in China ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I quoted a satirical comment by the British author. 

Senator Smith. May I ask a question there, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Were you in China while General Marshall was there? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir ; I wasn't. Wait a minute, now. I want to 
be absolutely accurate on this. 



3112 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

In the week of Christmas, 1945, to New Year's 1946 I was briefly in 
Shanghai and Peiping on a visit connected with the work of the rep- 
arations mission in Japan. 

I am not sure whether General Marshall was in China at the mo- 
ment or out of China for a visit. But I didn't see him. 

Senator Smith. Wliat I was pointing to was, was the trip that you 
made with Mr. Henry Wallace and some other persons, through Rus- 
sia, I believe, and Mongolia, did you go down to China on that trip? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith. Wliat year was that? 

Mr, Lattimore. 1944. 

Senator Smith. And how long were you gone on that trip? 

Mr, Lattimore. Approximately 2 months, I think. 

Senator Smith. Up to that time had the Chinese Nationalists, about 
that time, been holding their own, so to speak, if we may know, in 
their fight with the Communists ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Up to that moment there was officially no fighting 
between the Nationalists and the Communists. 

Senator Smith. What I meant was had the Nationalists up to that 
time held their ground? They hadn't been run over like they were 
later? 

Mr. Lattimore. They lost a lot of ground to the Japanese. I don't 
think they lost any ground to the Communists. 

Senator Smith. That is what I mean. Some time after that trip 
they did begin losing a lot of ground to the Communists, did they 
not? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that they lost it to the Japanese, not to 
the Communists as long as the war lasted. 

Senator Smith. When did they begin losing ground to the Com- 
munists? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think after the civil war began. 

Senator Smith. Do you remember what time, what year? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that is rather hard to date because there 
was a certain amount of scrappy fighting between the Nationalist 
troops and the Communist troops which General Marshall tried to 
halt with his famous truce teams, and so on; but the real fighting 
began in 1946. 

Senator Smith. That is all, unless you want to say something else 
about the Republican Party. 

Senator Jenner. I am glad to find out who sold them out. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Senator, is this a good time to break today ? 

Senator Smith. No; we will go on until we finish this. We only 
have seven more pages. We want to finish. 

Have you any questions now ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. No, sir ; not now. 

Senator Smith. All right, you may go ahead. 

Mr. Lattimore. I will proceed. 

There had in fact, been a coalition in China from 1937 to about 
1944. It had worked. It had not been dominated or captured by 
the Communists, and it had saved China from Japan. The Byrnes- 
Marsliall policy was not a new experiment. It was an attempt to 
restore and prolonged the previous combination that had been dom- 
inated by Chiang Kai-shek. 

Look at the historical record. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3113 

Before Pearl Harbor, the overwhelming issue in China was the 
issue of Japanese aggression. In 1937, the Chinese formed what they 
called a united front, including the Communists and Chiang's Na- 
tionalists, against further Japanese encroaclmient. It is of cardinal 
significance — and it conditions every subsequent event — that this 
united front enabled China to continue the fight against Japan — ^^with 
which we were also at war after December 1941 ; and that it was so 
clearly controlled by Chiang Kai-shek and his party that foreign aid, 
both ours and Eussia's, was received directly only by Chiang Kai- 
shek, not by the Communists. 

By 1944, or perhaps as early as 1943, while we were still in bitter 
war with Japan, this coalition had fallen apart so much that Ameri- 
can representatives, diplomatic, military, and economic were seriously 
worried. We were making every effort to strengthen Chiang Kai- 
shek, militarily and economically, but our help was being wasted 
through inefficiency and corruption. Some experienced observers were 
already beginning to believe that Chiang Kai-shek's part of free 
China was in danger of being completely conquered by the Japanese. 
Some of these observers, including American military officers, even 
felt that the American Govermnent ought to assert its right to send 
supplies to the Communist areas of resistance. Their argument was 
that we must be prepared to keep up resistance to the Japanese some- 
where in China, even if it was Communist "resistance, just as we were 
doing everything we could to keep Communist Russia in the war 
against Germany. 

If I had seen at that time some of the reports that were published 
later in the white paper, I might have taken a position in this con- 
troversy ; but I did not see them and so simply maintained my previous 
position in general support of Chinese resistance, and later supported 
the policy that General Marshall was trying to carry out. 

But I believe that this j)eriod has been well summed up by Mr. 
Joseph Alsop. In a column on July 25, 1951, he pointed out that the 
argimient for direct American dealings with the Communist-led forces 
had been ably presented by Mr. Jolm Davies, of the State Department, 
who was prophesying in 1943-44 that at the end of the war the Com- 
munists were going to come out on top ; but that if America gave them 
moderate aid it would promote their confidence in America, and thus 
achieve a division between them and the Kremlin. Mr. Alsop had 
opposed Mr. Davies' position at the time, but in his column he con- 
cludes: 

Davies made what must now be accounted an extremely brilliant deduction — 
that Titoism was possible, before Titoism had been heard of — and if Davies' 
recommendations had been followed, I now believe he would have been proven 
right. 

Also, there is an important fact that has not been brought out before 
this committee. General Marshall's proposals were not an attempt 
to force Chiang, alone and without allies, into cooperation with the 
Communists. Much hope was placed in the minority parties com- 
posing the Democratic League, when General Marshall called — 

a splendid group of men, but who as yet lack the political power to exercise a 
controlling influence. Successful action on their part under the leadership of 
Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek would, I believe, lead to unity through good 
government (White Paper, p. 688). 



3114 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

If Chiang had known how to strengthen those allies and undertake 
with them a progiam of reforms it would have been possible to take 
the steam out of the Communist drive to political power. Chiang's- 
failure to restrain the hostility and brutality of his rightwing sup- 
porters toward this group did much to destroy the support that moder- 
ate and liberal Chinese had been given him. 

In that situation some of our best qualified observers had already 
predicted that if the Communist problem were put to the test of force- 
in a civil war, the attempt would end in disaster. We all know that 
the attempt was made, that it did end in disaster, and that General 
Marshall, put the blame for the failure of his negotiations on the in- 
transigeants of both Chiang Kai-shek's side and the Communist side. 
We also know that it is the opinion of the American military experts 
who had most to do with Chiang's armies that Chiang overreached 
himself by invading Manchuria too deeply, against the advice of 
General Wedemeyer, and that, in the words of our own General Barr : 

No battle has been lost since my arrival due to lack of ammunition or equip- 
ment. Their military debacles, in my opinion can all be attributed to the 
world's worse leadership and many other morale-destroying factors that led to 
a complete loss of the will to fight (hearings before Committee on Armed Serv- 
ices and Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, June 1951, p. 1S56). 

That, Senators, is the outline of what happened. Every possible 
effort has been made, by Chiang's representatives and by the China 
lobby to confuse the story, but the record speaks for itself. Let me 
repeat: there had been a united front, or loosely spcakhig, a coalition 
of Chiang's party and the Comnnmists from 1937 to 1944. It had 
worked in the sense that Chiang had been able to dominate it, and 
that China had been able to defend itself against Japan, and thereby 
to help itself and us. Coalition proposals by General Marshall and 
others were made in the light of this history and of the clear, ines- 
capable facts known to all of us who are not blinded by interest or 
idolatory, that Chiang's party was falling apart — and if put to the 
test would fall and the Communists would prevail. 

And now what? How are we to handle the continuing conse- 
quences of the vast shift in the world balance of power represented 
by Cliina under the control of a Communist government friendly to 
Moscow ? 

Some, including Chiang's refugee government and the China lobby, 
want to involve us in a war with Russia on the mainland of China, 
the sooner the better. I agree with General Bradley that this would 
be "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." 

Some want us to follow a policy of blockade, raids, and landings, 
aid to anti-Communist guerrillas, and the activities of what Congress- 
man Walter Judd calls a United States "department of dirty tricks." 
I agree with the general consensus of the China experts in Great 
Britain that this would result merely in welding tighter the alliance 
between Peking Reds and Kremlin Reds, and an increase in the rate 
of Russian aid and in completing the conversion of China into a 
police state on the model of the Russian police state. 

Some believe that we should write off China as a total loss. Again, 
I do not agree. 

As the basis for a policy that might work, I suggest the follow- 
ing principles 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3115 

Mr. SouRwiNE. So that the record might be clear, Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to ask the witness another question. 

From here on to the end of the statement, you are giving your rec- 
ommendations with regard to foreign policy that the United States 
should follow ; is that right ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is quite right. 

Senator Smith. I do not think that has any place in this invBS- 
tigation. 

Senator Jenner. It could be submitted for the record. 

Senator Smith. Yes. We will stop right there. The statement 
will be in the record. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, may I correct myself? I have been 
reading along and lost track of things. 

Mr. Sourwine asked me if, from there to the end, it was my recom- 
mendation of foreign policy. There are seven points of foreign 
policy here, but the remainder, from the bottom of page 48 to 50 
contains matter which I think is not direct recommendations of a 
foreign policy of this country. 

Senator Smith. That is dealing with the future anyway. I say 
that it can be put into the record. 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to ask one question. 

In relation to the letters and the memoranda to the President, 
and your talk, did you distinguish between being an adviser to the 
State Department and the President? Do you draw any distinc- 
tion there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I was simply a citizen who wanted to put 
some ideas before the President. 

Senator Ferguson, But when you were asked at times, as I under- 
stand it — and I want you to correct me if I am not correct — you 
claimed you were never an adviser to the State Department. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is quite right. 

Senator Ferguson. And did you distinguish then between that 
and being an adviser to the President? 

Mr. Lattimore, I would certainly distinguish. Senator, but I don't 
think I was being an adviser to the President. 

Senator Ferguson, When a man writes the letter and the two 
memoranda, or the one with the two parts of it, and the different 
letters, and saying how important it was that you see the President 
before he made commitments, in effect, do you say that is not in there? 
You are shaking your head, 

Mr, FoRTAS. I do not think that Avas what the letter said. 

Senator Ferguson. Let me have the letter. 

Reading from the letter of June 20 : 

Since I am most anxious that the views which I represent should be laid 
before the President for his consideration before his forthcoming meeting with 
Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stiilin, I hope very much that you will 
find it possible to arrange an appointment for me as soon as possible after the 
President returns from San Francisco. 

And then you give him the places that you can be reached. Do you 
still say that he did not want to act as an adviser to the President, 
counsel ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. No ; I say that is not the point. 

Senator Ferguson. What is the point? Why were you shaking 
your head when I was giving the question? 



3116 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

I do not mind being criticized from the witness, I expect it from 
the witness. But I do not expect that from the counsel. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Senator, in the first place I was not criticizing you. 
And in the second place, I believe, and the record will show — or at 
least I understood and the record will show whether it was or not — 
your reference was to the letter which Mr. Lattimore sent to the 
President. 

Senator Ferguson. The record will show that I was asking about 
his desire to give advice. 

Mr. FoRTAS. You can ask the question and I am sure he will answer 
it. But I thought you were referring to the witness' letter to the 
President. 

Senator Ferguson. You saw I had a paper in my hand, and you 
thought I was looking at it. It had nothing to do with the question. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is a question of the choice of words and the 
meaning of words to different people. 

In my opinion, an adviser is a person who is retained or requested 
to act as an adviser. I don't think that the hundreds, in fact thou- 
sands, of people who ask to see the President of the United States in 
the course of a year in order to make suggestions of various kinds can 
accurately be classified as advisers. 

Senator Ferguson. So you are now saying that the reason you did 
not mention the President and these letters, and this memorandum, 
was that you figured that you were offering your advice, and he was 
not requesting it. Is that correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is correct. 

Senator Smith. Are you through? 

Senator Ferguson. Had you ever approved the plan that General 
Marshall was sent to China to put into effect ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I approved the sending of General Marshall, and 
I approved the statements 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask you that. I asked you if you 
approved the plan. 

Mr. Lattimore. I approved the statement that was issued at the 
time that he went to China, which was all that the public knew of the 
purposes of the mission. I approved of that. 

Senator Ferguson. Wlien did you learn that he was sent on a mis- 
sion to try and take the Communists into the government, as you advo- 
cated in your memorandum ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I learned that General Marsliall was going to China 
when I saw it in the press. I did not advocate that General Marshall 
be sent to China to take the Communists into the government. 

Senator Ferguson. You did not advocate that General Marshall 
be sent, but you advocated that that be our policy ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I warned the President, as I recall. May I see tho 
text of what I wrote? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I warned the President. 

Senator Smith. Do you have any other copies of this? I imagine 
there might be some curious people that would like to see them. 

Senator Ferguson. I would say there would be. 

Mr. Lattimore. We have only the copies that we are turning in. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The letters are in the record, including the memo- 
randum, I think. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3117 

Senator Smith. There was some question that they be admitted 
subject to the propriety that the chairman woukl pass on them, having 
in mind there might be some correspondence with the President with 
which I might not be familiar. 

Senator Ferguson. I thought they were in or else I would not have 
examined on them. 

Senator Smith. I do not think there is any secrecy about them. 
But I did have some hesitancy myself in ruling on correspondence that 
might have passed between Professor Lattimore and the President of 
the United States, and I prefer to leave that for the chairman of the 
committee to pass on. 

Mr. FoRTAS. My I suggest, it is 5 : 15, and this witness has been on 
the stand all day. Perhaps you can clear that up tomorrow morn- 
ing. 

Senator Smith. That can be done. But there is one thing, and I 
want to make it clear. Mr. Lattimore stopped reading or finished 
reading, I believe, at the top of page 47. Then there are a few pages, 
47, 48, 49, and half of page 50, and I asked whether or not anybody 
wishes to have them read. 

I want to ask whether Dr. Lattimore wants to go ahead and read it 
now, so that his whole story will be before us. 

Senator Ferguson. I do not want to object to him reading it. 

Senator Smith. I am asking Dr. Lattimore whether or not it is his 
wish that he proceed to read the pages. You see, they are dealing 
with some advice as to policy, not as to the past. What is your pref- 
erence ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I prefer to read it, if I might. 

As a basis for a policy that might work, I suggest the following 

Senator Ferguson. Is this a suggestion to the committee or are 
these your views ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is my statement of opinion about foreign 
policy. 

Senator Ferguson. But not advice to the committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is not advice to the committee. It is words 
to be considered by anyone who is interested. 

As the basis' for a policy that might work, I suggest the following 
principles : 

1. Since the North Korean Communist aggression, we have made 
clear some of the broad outlines of our policy in Asia as a whole. We 
have shown that we will nowhere tolerate the territorial expansion 
of communism by armed aggression, that we have the power to protect 
free peoples against this kind of aggression, and that if it is tried 
again, elsewhere, we shall resist again. We must hold fast to this 
policy, and we must build and maintain the strength to carry it out. 
If we do I believe we can count on countinuing United Nations 
backing. 

2. On the basis of these principles, we must consider the problem of 
China as a part of the whole complex of the problems of Asia. We can- 
not handle it successfully in isolation. We must be ready and quick 
to resist aggression anywhere in Asia ; and at the same time, we must 
be even ahead of the Asians in insisting that freedom for them means 
freedom from all foreign domination — our own, Britain's and France's 
as well as that of the Soviet Union. 

88348— 52— pt. 9 15 



3118 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

3. Our stand in Korea made it possible to begin negotiating from 
a position of strength. But in negotiating from positions of strength, 
it is necessary to show also that while we are determined to stop Com- 
munist aggression, we are eager to promote alternatives that are ac- 
ceptable to the maximum number of people in Asia — and Europe. 
We must show that we are not blindly committed to preventing 
changes in the status quo — that we accept the principles of national 
self-determination, national independence, and the right of any people 
to determine its own form of government and its own economic sys- 
tem. 

4. Those aspects of our policy that are symbolized by the words 
"point 4" and "Marshall plan" must be made as positive, as active, 
and as important as the aspects that are symbolized by the words "con- 
tainment'' and "positions of strength." We must show our willingness 
to help in the progress of economic development, as well as political 
freedom, in all the countries that are willing to accept our policies 
of equality, mutual help, and mutual defense. 

5'. I do not prophesy — I do not think any man could honestly 
prophesy — what the eventual answer will be. But I do believe that 
China is different from Russia, has national interests different from 
those of Russia, and will follow those interests rather than Russian 
doctrine and dogma. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. May I ask one question at that point, Mr. Chair- 
man ? 

Mr. Lattimore, do you presently believe that the Chinese Commu- 
nists are following the line of Moscow ? 

Mr. Lati^imore. Yes, I do. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you see any signs that they are about to give 
it up ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I haven't had the time to follow the situation very 
closeh^, but I don't see any signs. 

I do not pretend to know how far the China of the future may 
differ from the Russia of the present, or in what way. But I do be- 
lieve that there is no Russian combination of strategic, political, and 
economic forces that can permanently mold the people of China 
against their will. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you not understand that communism will 
not be directly, as far as the Chinese are concerned, indicated that it is 
coming from Moscow, but it is the trained man from Moscow, and 
under the domination of Moscow, that will make it appear to the 
Chinese that the thing is Chinese rather than Russian? 

Mr. Latiimore. On the contrarj^. Senator. My understanding is 
that the present Chinese Communist propaganda emphasizes the Rus- 
sian connection. I may be wrong on that. It may have switched 
again, but that was the last I heard of it. 

Senator Ferguson. But the actual Russian does not come down ex- 
ceytt as an overseer, does he ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry, I am not informed on the details of 
that. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. You are giving an opinion. I would think 
before you would give an opinion that you would know something 
about the details. 

Mr. Latttmore. Senator, I am trying to give long-range opinions. 

Senator Ferguson. This is long-range advice ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3119 

Mr. Lattimore. This is long range. 

Senator Ferguson. Fifty or one hundred years ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. How long? What do you call a long-range 
opinion ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is not intended to be a report on the details of 
last week's situation in China. 

Senator Ferguson. How long a range? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know, Senator. I should think it would 
depend partly on the outcome of the Korean negotiations. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that this advice will help this 
committee in deciding whether or not there was penetration in the 
IPR by Communists, and whether or not the IPR had an influence on 
the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it might help the committee to decide 
whether they think that I am a Communist or not. 

Senator Smith. You mean what you say as to the future? 

Mr. Lattimore. Wliat I say as to the future. If you think I am 
talking like a Communist, that is your judgment. 

Senator Ferguson. No, I think we ought to take it for the last 
reason. 

IMr. Lattimore. 6. It is of critical importance that, as the inde- 
pendent forces and separate characteristics of China begin to make 
themselves felt, both China and the rest of Asia should be made to 
realize that their true future lies in independence — independence of 
America, as of Russia, but a real independence supported by America, 
and not a phony independence subordinate to Russia. 

7. Independence of this kind is possible. It is possible without a 
world war. And it can lead eventually to a stabilization of relations 
with Russia as well as with Asia. It is the declared policy of our 
Government that our purpose in attaining positions of strength is to 
be able to negotiate such a stabilization. I support that concept of 
policy. 

But to carry out such a policy successfully, we must convince Asia, 
and the world, and above all ourselves, that we are not abandoning 
democracy. In defending ourselves against totalitarian aggression 
abroad and infiltration within, we must not, despairing of our heri- 
tage of freedom, try to take refuge in the brutal kind of police state 
that we fought against when we destroyed Hitler and defeated Japan. 

The responsibility, gentlemen, for deciding how the problems of 
China and Asia shall be handled rests squarely on this country, be- 
cause of our preponderating influence on the policies of such countries 
as Britain, France, and Japan. I know that there are people who 
believe that we should forthwith go to war with the Soviet Union and 
thereby resolve the conflict over China and the world. Your chair- 
man has said that such a war is inevitable. A logical case of sorts 
can be made for this view, based on the record of the intransigeance 
and faithlessness of the Soviet Union in the international community. 
But this case disregards the basic values of the lives and the spiritual 
and moral well-being of ordinary people. These values are at stake, 
and they would be threatened even more by a great world war than 
thev are by the present limited conflict. 

War may come upon us. We may have no choice other than to en- 
dure and inflict its horrors. But the moral values that we are defend- 



3120 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

ing cannot be defended if we take upon ourselves the inhuman and 
brutal responsibility of preventive war. The demands of civilization 
and humanity are that we make every effort, unless and until we are 
forced into war, to protect ourselves and the values of civilization by 
means short of war. 

The policy which I have described, as well as the policy to which 
our Government and the United Nations are committed at the mo- 
ment, is the policy of containment of aggression and of building up 
the conditions and forces of freedom. It demands, over and above 
strength and firmness, a deep understanding of the hearts and aspira- 
tions of men. This policy is the hard way, the difficult course. It 
requires patience, firmness ,and great skill. If we follow it, we shall 
be walking, fully armed, through minefields and among pitfalls. A 
violent move can bring disaster. Misinformation as to where we are 
treading, and the sensitiveness of the ground on which we tread, can 
cause a fatal miscalculation. 

Senator Smith. Just a minute. Dr. Lattimore. It has come to the 
attention of the Chair, from at least two sources, that at the end of 
this session a demonstration has been planned in this room. 

The Chair wants to state that there will be no demonstration. The 
Chair has asked officers to come into this room, and the hall, and under 
no circumstances will we tolerate any demonstration for or against 
Dr. Lattimore. I hope that it will not be necessary for the officers to 
arrest anyone, as I have instructed them to do if there is any demon- 
stration whatsoever. 

Go ahead. Dr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Gentlemen, of this I am certain : So long as this 
program of maneuver is our policy, so long as we choose the difficult 
and great course of peace, we are completely dependent for success 
on the validity of our information, the skill with which we analyze 
the information, and the ability not only of our diplomats but of our 
non-Government, academic, and private research students and analy- 
sts. We cannot hope to play this dangerous game, and certainly not 
to win it, unless we have the facts as to what is going on. Our observ- 
ers must be allowed to report the facts as they see them, without the 
fear that their motives will be misconstrued if they tell the truth. We 
must know the facts favorable to our enemy as well as those that we 
like. Of equal importance, we must have the views and opinions of 
all who have any special competence. Their views must be freely 
stated and stoutly maintained, so that those who have the ultimate 
decisions to make may have the fullest choice of various alternatives 
and so that the people may understand the issues at stake. 

We cannot, of course, entrust our destiny in any way to those whose 
first allegiance is to a foreign loyalty, whether that be the Soviet 
Union, Communist China, Chiang's Formosa, or Franco's Spain. But 
we must be ever alert to encourage, and not to destroy, freedom for 
the vigorous expression of views, even of wrong views ; and freedom 
for our private institutions, as well as our official personnel, to make 
their contributions to the formation of policy and the determination 
of our destiny. This is the essence of democracy, and it is democracy's 
strength. It must not be destroyed. 

Senator Smith. Dr. Lattimore, you have finished your prepared 
statement, I believe ? 

Mr. La'itimore. Yes, sir. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3121 

Senator Smith. And you have been allowed to finish it with the 
opportunity for such vigor as you wish to express, have you not? 

Mr. Lattimore. And with occasional interrogations, Mr. Chairman, 
as the chairman stated at the beginning. 

Senator Smith. I must say, at the end of this reading by you of a 
prepared statement, you have been allowed to finish this reading un- 
molested and with the emphasis you have just demonstrated. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. 

Senator Smith. I just want to make that clear and have it in the 
record. 

Senator Ferguson. I wanted to ask if there is anything that he 
wanted to say now about this document, or to add to it or subtract from 
it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not at the moment. Senator, thank you. 

Senator Smith. Then we will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 
o'clock, when the examination of Dr. Lattimore will continue. 

("Whereupon, at 5 : 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a. m., Friday, February 29, 1952.) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



FBIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 1952 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 
OF THE Internal Security Act and Other Internal 
Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. G. 

The subcommittee met at 10 : 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 
424 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Pat McCarran (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present : Senators McCarran, Eastland, O'Conor, Smith, Ferguson, 
and Watkins. 

Senators Young, McCarthy, and Mundt. 

Also present : J. G. Sourwine, committee counsel ; and Eobert Mor- 
ris, subcommittee counsel. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

We regret the congested condition of the room, but it is impossible 
to do otherwise. We hope that we may have quiet. 

You may proceed, Mr. Morris. 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN LATTIMORE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

ABE FORTAS 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore 



Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, I was asked yesterday at the close 
of my statement if I had anything to add. I do have some supple- 
mentary material that I should like to be allowed time to assemble 
over the week end and present later. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, have you ever worked in concert with 
a person whom you knew to be a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't believe I have. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever knowingly assisted the Communist 
Party of any country, or any person or persons known to you to be 
a Communist or pro-Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. The Institute of Pacific Relations; of course, the 
Russian members of the Russian Council could be assumed to be Com- 
munist. 

Mr. Morris. But apart from them ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Apart from them, no; I don't believe so. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever taken instructions or abided by recom- 
mendations made by members of the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not to my knowledge ; no. 

3123 



3124 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. The Communist Party or any other country ? 

Mr. Lati'imore. No. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever received any orders or instructions or 
suggestions, directly or indirectly, from any Communist or pro-Com- 
munist source? 

Mr, Lattimore. That I considered to be Communist or pro-Com- 
munist at the time ? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the answer ? 

Mr. Morris. I will read it again. [Reading :] 

Have you ever received any orders or instructions or suggestions, directly or 
indirectly, from any Communist or pro-Communist source? 

Mr. Lattimore. Orders and instructions, no. Of course, when I 
went up to Yenan, the Chinese Communist headquarters, in 1937, 
and later in Chungking under the instructions of Generalissimo 
Chiang Kai-shek, I did talk with Communists. 

Mr. Morris. But otherwise your answer is "No" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Otherwise my answer is "No." 

The Chairman. Read that question again, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever received any orders or instructions or 
suggestions, directly or indirectly, from any Communist or pro-Com- 
munist source? 

The Chairman. Do you fully understand the question, Mr. Latti- 
more? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I considered to be Communist or pro- 
Communist at the time. 

Mr. Sourwine. Except for Yenan and Chungking. 

Mr. Lattimore. Except for Yenan and Chungking. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, I don't consider that he has 
answered the question. When he puts the answer "considered" I 
do not think he has answered the question at all. 

The Chairman. Read the question again, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris (reading) : 

Have you ever received any orders, instructions or suggestion, directly or in- 
directly, from any Communist or pro-Communist source? 

(Mr, Lattimore consulting counsel.) 

Senator Ferguson. The question is did he know them to be Com- 
munists or have information. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I considered to be Communist at the time. 

The Chairman. I do not think that that is the answer, and I do not 
think it calls for time, Mr. Lattimore. I think you should consider the 
question, if you please. I asked you if you understood it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I understood it, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. I will have it read again for you if you 
think you do not understand it or if you have any doubt about the 
understanding of it, because it is a vital Question. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I understood it, and I think my answer was 
clear, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I do not think you have made an answer to the 
question, Mr. Lattimore. In order that you may clarify your situa- 
tion, I ask the counsel to read the question again. 

Mr. Morris (reading) : 

Have you ever received any orders or instructions or suggestions, directly or 
Indirectly, from any Communist or pro-Communist source? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3125 

Mr, Lattimore. Not that I considered to be Communist. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Except in the case of Chmigking and Yenan. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, and there it is only a question of having con- 
versations with them, and I don't remember anything there that could 
be considered a suggestion, much less an instruction. 

The Chairman. Or an order. 

Mr. Lattimore. Or an order. 

The Chairman. Very well, proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever consciously conformed your actions or 
your expressions of opinion with any Communist policy or Commu- 
nist directive ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. When you were editor of the publication Pacific 
Affairs did you ever publish an article by a person whom you knew to 
be a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Apart from Russian contributions, no. 

Mr. Morris. While you were editor of Pacific Affairs did you pub- 
lish articles by persons whom you subsequently learned were members 
of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; learned or believed to be now. 

Mr. Morris. Who were they, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Well, Mr. Field, and I suppose I should include 
any of those who have refused to testify before this committee. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that James S. Allen was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir; I didn't. To the best of my recollection, 
I knew nothing about him prior to his article coming in. 

Mr. Morris. Prior to 

Mr. Lattimore. His article being submitted. 

Mr. Morris. Well, did you know him to be a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think I did. 

Mr. Morris. That is, during the time you were editor of Pacific 
Affairs 

Mr. Lattimore. During the time. 

Mr. Morris (continued). Right up to the middle of 1941, did you 
ever know that James S. Allen was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know that Joseph Barnes was a Commu- 
nist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. Again during the term of your editorship of Pacific 
Affairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. Then or ever. 

Mr. Morris. That term is applied to all of these questions. The^ 
term "while you were an editor of Pacific Affairs" is applied to all of 
the questions I am now asking. 

Mr. Lattimore. I see ; yes. 

Senator Watkins. Mr. Morris, I think probably he ought to be 
asked if he has ever been told by anyone that they were Communists 
during that time, in addition to the question you have asked. 

Mr. Morris. Were you ever told that James S. Allen was a Com- 
munist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I was. 

Mr. Morris. Were you ever told that Joseph Barnes was a Com- 
munist ? 



3126 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Kathleen 
Barnes was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Mr. T. A. 
Bisson was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Chi- 
Chao-ting was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Chen 
Han-seng was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Frederick 
V. Field was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Michael 
Greenberg was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know or were you ever told that Y. Y. Hsu was 
a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know or were you ever told that Olga Lang 
was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Harriet 
Moore was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Lawrence 
K. Rosinger was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Guenther 
Stein was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Edgar 
Snow was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Were you ever told that he was pro-Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore, No ; I don't believe I was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that he was pro-Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. I didn't consider him pro-Communist. 

The Chairman. The question is, "Did you know ?" I think you can 
answer that "Yes" or "No," Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge, he was not pro-Com- 
munist. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that Andrew J. Steiger or were you 
ever told that Andrew J. Steiger was a Communist? 

Mr. Latteviohe. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Anna 
Louise Strong was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know or were you ever told that Mary Van 
Kleeck was a Communist? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3127 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or have you ever been told that 
Nym Wales was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore, No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know or were you ever told that Ella 
Winter was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. If I might interrupt, by the witness' answer to each 
of those questions "No ; I don't believe I ever was," do you intend the 
"I don't believe I ever was" to refer to the portion of the question 
about having been told ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I include that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does the "No" go both to the question of knowing 
and of having been told whether the person was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. In each instance? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Very good. 

Senator Ferguson. So, even though there are two questions, you 
are answering both of them "No" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am answering both of them, to both parts of the 
question, that I don't believe I ever was. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you qualifying that answer ? 

The Chairman. Wait a minute, now. Put the question again. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you answer both parts of the questions, all 
of the questions, "No" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I answered both parts of all the questions "No; I 
don't believe I ever was." 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Are you qualifying the "No" there? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am qualifying that I don't believe I ever was. 

Mr. Sourwine. The statement "I don't believe I ever was" is not 
a completely responsive answer to the question, did you know So-an- 
So was a Communist. That is all I was getting at. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it certainly is intended to be responsive, 
Mr. Sourwine. 

The Chairman. You mean to answer "No" ; do you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I mean to answer "No" ; that I don't believe I ever 
was. After all, my memory is not perfect. I am being asked about 
people with some of whom I had extremely slight contact many years 
ago. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, if I ask you "Did you ever know 
that Y. Y. Hsu was a Communist?" and you say, "No", I don't believe 
I ever was," it is not completely responsive. Do you see what I mean? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I was asked if I know or was I ever told 

Mr. Sourwine. That is right. 

Mr. Lattimore. That he was a Communist, and I don't believe I 
ever was. 

Mr. Sourwine. Ever was told. 

Mr. Lattimore. Ever was told. 

Mr. Sourwine. Specifically on the question of did you know. 

Mr. Lattimore. And I don't believe I ever knew. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right. That is your answer to each of these 
series of questions? 



3128 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS ' 

Mr. L'attimore. That is my answer. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That is all I wanted to know. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you qualifying the word "no?" 

Mr. Lattimore. I am saying that I don't believe I ever knew or 
was told. 

Senator Ferguson. I do not think that is responsive to the ques- 
tion. 

The Chairman. It is not responsive because he can say "No," and 
that would answer the question. It is a complete answer to the ques- 
tion. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator, it would be a complete answer to the ques- 
tion if I had a total memory, but I just don't. 

Mr. Morris. Were you ever told that Victor A. Yakontoff was 
frankly pro-Soviet? 

Mr, Lattimore. I don't believe so. 

Mr. Morris. At any time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know a man who used the pen name of 
Asiaticus ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I never knew him. I received articles from him 
which I published. 

Mr. Morris. Did not all of the above 21 persons contribute leading 
articles to Pacific Affairs while you were editor of Pacific Affairs? 
Allen, Barnes, Kathleen Barnes, Bisson, Chi, Chen Han-seng, Field, 
Greenberg, Hsu, Lang, Moore, Kosinger, Stein, Snow, Steiger, Anna 
Louise Strong, Mary Van Kleeck, Nym Wales, Ella Winter, Victor 
Yakontoff, and Asiaticus? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would not be able to reply offliand that they all 
contributed at all or that they contributed leading articles. 

The Chairman. You weren't asked about leading articles. You 
were asked did they contribute articles. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I think I asked about leading articles. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

(Mr. Lattimore conferring with counsel.) 

The Chairman. Did they contribute leading articles while you 
were editor of the magazine ? 

Mr. Morris. Do you want to refresh your recollection ? 

The Chairman. Just a minute. 

Mr. Morris. That is all right if he wants to refresh his recollection. 

Mr. Lattimore. I have a list here of contributors to Pacific Affairs, 
Mr. Chairman. I would like to consult it. 

Mr. Morris. I think that is all right. 

Mr. Lattimore. Did you say that Michael Greenberg was on that 
list? 

Mr. Morris. Yes ; Michael Greenberg. 

Mr. Lattimore. My list here, which may not be correct, shows a 
contribution from him in September 1941, which would be after the 
period of my editorship. 

Mr. Morris. I see. You didn't prepare for that edition. 

Mr. Laitimore. No ; I don't think I did. 

^ Mr. SouRwiNE. How much is the lag, Mr. Lattimore, in your maga- 
zine? That is, what is your schedule? What is the time period 
between preparation and going to press ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3129 

Mr. Lattimore. This was a quarterly magazine, and therefore the 
timing of a quarterly magazine is rather leisurely. Some of the 
articles came from abroad. So some articles would be, so to speak, 
in the works for more than the period between two issues. The clos- 
ing date before going to press when I was editing for China was rather 
long, naturally, because I had to send the final material from China. 
Then, when I was editing it from Baltimore it was naturally very much 
shorter, but I don't remember just what the time limit was. 

Mr. bouRwiNE. Do you think it was a month, 6 weeks, 2 months? 

Mr. Lattimore. It may have been of the order of 6 weeks or so. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Thank you. 

Mr. Lattimore. Did you say that Y. Y. Hsu was on your list, Mr. 
Morris ? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't have him on my list at all. That may be a 
mistake on my part. 

The Chairman. I would like to have the answer, did he or did he 
not? After you consult your list, I would like to have you answer 
the question completely. 

Mr. Lattimore. In that case my list may not be absolutely correct. 

Mr. Morris, Would your list show a translation done by him, Mr. 
Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Possibly there may have been a translation by him 
that wouldn't show in my list. 

Mr. Morris. You would have the original listed there, not the trans- 
lation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. I think that is enough on that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I do not think you have an answer to the question. 
Do you have your question there ? 

Mr. Morris. With the exception of those two, Mr. Lattimore 

Mr. Lattimore. I am going on through the list 

The Chairman. Consult your list and then answer the question. 
[Mr. Lattimore examining document.] 

Mr. Lattimore. I think those are the only exceptions I would make, 
Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Otherwise your answer is "Yes," Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattpmore. That they contributed to Pacific Affairs during 
the period when I was editor of it. 

Mr. Morris. There was a further qualification, that it was leading 
articles, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. Leading articles would be a question of subjective 
judgment, and I am not sure whether I would qualify all those con- 
tributions as leading articles. 

Mr. Morris. How about the distinction of an article rather than 
a review in Pacific Affairs ? 

^ The Chairman. What do you mean by that, how about a distinc- 
tion ? I don't think your question is clear. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, Pacific Affairs is made up of a series 
of articles and a series of book reviews. There is a distinction be- 
tween the two. In fact, you have them listed separate, do you not, 
Mr. Lattimore ? 

The Chairman. Make your question complete. 



3130 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Would you testify that they contributed articles as 
opposed to reviews ? 

Mr. Laitimore. I see. I think there is a further distinction to be 
made, that Pacific Aflairs 

The Chairman. First of all, answer that question and then see if 
there is a further distinction to be made. 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that they all contributed articles; yes, not 
reviews. 

The Chairman. If you wish to make a further distribution, you 
may do so. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. I was simply going to state that Pacific 
Affairs included at the beginning of the magazine, articles. Then 
there was a section called "comment and opinion" or "comment and 
criticism," or something of that sort, which would be in a quarterly 
magazine more or less the equivalant of a letters to the editor section, 
and then came the book reviews. 

Mr. Morris. If you use the term "leading articles," what would you 
describe as a leading article, in Pacific Affairs ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would put it in the article section, but would not 
include the comment and criticism section. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, have you testified in executive session 
before this committee that you did not know Asiaticus to be a Com- 
munist and in your opinion he was a Socialist? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I did ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Is the chairman satisfied with that answer? We will 
have Mr. Lattimore's answer read into the record. He said he believed 
he did. 

The Chairman. Let us have it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am speaking from my recollection. 

Mr. Morris. I understand you can't be expected to remember it 
word for word. 

Senator Ferguson. No. Show it to him and ask him if that is 
true. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I have it here. 

The Chairman. Show him the record and he may answer. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You will find it on that page, Mr. Lattimore [Mr. 
Lattimore examining transcript]. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, my statement is that testimony was, "I don't 
know he was a Communist. I would have said, speaking as of the 
late 1930's, that I would have thought he was possibly a Socialist, 
but not a Communist," 

Mr. ]\IoRRiss. All right. Mr. Lattimore, did you not testify in 
executive session before this committee that you did not know that 
Asiaticus was a Marxist? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I see the transcript ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. That is on page 87. 

Mr. Lattimore. I testified, "I didn't know whether he was a 
Marxist or not. I thought he was a left-winger." 

May I add there that this was many years ago, and my memory 
may not have been perfectly accurate. Also I would like to add that 
I certainly did not consider myself then and don't consider myself 
even now an authority on who is a Marxist and who isn't. 

JNlr. Morris. To your qnowled£:e was Asiaticus 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3131 

The Chairman. The reference to many years ago doesn't refer 
to the record you have in your hands, does it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That was not in the record. I am adding that now, 
sir. 

The Chairman. I know, but you said your memory many years 
ago. You did not refer to the record that you made that was handed 
to you today ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't refer to it at the time. I said I wanted 
to add that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The Chairman means this record was not made 
many years ago. 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I was just adding a clarification. 

Mr. Sourwine. This record was on July 13, 1951. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, might the record be clear as to 
what was in the record of the executive session and what he added? 
I am not clear what he added. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think the record should be clear on that. 

The Chairman. Counsel may read the record. 

Senator Ferguson. So it will be clear. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Asiaticus was under discussion. Mr. Morris said: 

And yet, Mr. Lattimore, you were able to recommend him as a qualified per- 
former for the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Lattimore said : 

I didn't recommend him. He wrote in some material for me which I thought 
was a good article on the subject and I published it. One of his articles was on 
railway loans in China at the turn of the century, the late 1890's and the early 
1900's. It concerned some of the British Railway loans of that period. I sent 
the article, as I always did in such cases, to the Royal Institute of International 
Affairs in London, and they disagreed with some of his interpretations but not 
with his statements of facts. 

INIr. Morris. You knew at the time he was at least a Marxist, didn't you? 

Mr. Lattimore. I didn't know whether he was a Marxist or not. I thought he 
was a left-winger. 

Mr. Morris. What do you mean by that term, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is a vague term which it is extremely difficult to make 
precise. 

In connection with the other matter 

The Chairman. Let's not get that confused with the other matter. 
Mr .Sourwine. I mean the other mention of Asiaticus. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that Asiaticus had any part in the inquiry conducted 
by the Institute of Pacific Relations, the long inquiry that you people conducted 
in the late thirties? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't answer that. I was not in charge of the inquiry and 
I don't know who did participate and who didn't. 

Mr. Morris. Can you recall that you commended Mr. Carter on the selection 
of Asiaticus on that inquiry? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't recall it. 

Mr. Morris. You do not recall that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I wouldn't have been at all surprised, I thought he was a 
good economist who knew economic conditions in China pretty well. 

Mr. Morris. And it is your testimony that you did not know he was a Com- 
munist? 

Mr. Lattimore. I didn't know he was a Communist. I would have said, speak- 
ing as of the late 1930's, that I would have thought he was possibly a Socialist, 
but not a Communist. 



3132 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, did you testify in executive session that 
you did not know that Asiaticus had written for Imprecorr, the offi- 
cial publication of the Communist International ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I did. 

Mr. Morris. Page 86 and page 88. 

The Chairman. Show that to him. [Mr. Lattimore examining 
docmnent.] 

Mr. Lattimore. The question here from Mr. Morris was, "Did you 
know that he had written for Imprecorr." And, "Mr. Lattimore: 
No ; I didn't." 

May I add at this time that I doubt very much whether I knew in 
the 1930's that there was such a thing as Imprecorr. 

Mr. Morris. To your knowledge, Mr. Lattimore, was Asiaticus 
considered a Marxist in IPK. circles ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't answer that, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Do you have knowledge that he was considered a 
Marxist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think I do. I don't know and I don't 
think I ever did. 

Mr. Morris. I see. Did you know that Asiaticus had written a 
book published in Berlin under Communist auspices entitled "From 
Shanghai to Canton"? 

Mr. Lattimore. Here I am speaking from recollection which is not 
at all precise, but I believe I may have been told that by Wittfogel. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that he had written the book From 
Shanghai to Canton from your own knowledge ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not from my own knowledge, no. 

Mr. Morris. Did you read the book? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. What names did you know Asiaticus by? Did you 
know him by the name of Shippe ? 

Mr. Lattlmore. Shippe, or Shipper; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Hans Mueller? 

Mr. Lattimore. Hans Mueller ? I don't think I did. 

Mr. Morris. Any other name? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, Not that I recall. 

Mr. Morris. When you corresponded with him you corresponded 
with him in the name of Shippe ; is that your testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is my recollection, yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, how many articles did Asiaticus write 
for you while you were editor of Pacific Aif airs ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My list here shows four. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, so we will be sure we are talking about 
the same man, I show j'ou a volume of Pacific Affairs. Which one 
is that? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is volume 9 for June 1936. 

Mr. Morris. Does that contain an article by Asiaticus ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It contains an article by Asiaticus. 

Mr. Sourwine. May I see that, Mr. Lattimore? Mr. Lattimore, 
are any of these people who wrote for this particular issue of Pacific 
Affairs, Communists so far as you know ? 

Mr. Laitimore. Not of my personal knowledge. 

Mr. Sourwine. Harriet Moore? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not of my personal Imowledge. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3133 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Asiaticus? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not of my personal knowledge. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Guenther Stein ? 

Mr. Latt'more. Not of my personal knowledge. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Lin Yu? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not of my personal knowledge. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Wang Yu-Ch'uan ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Wait a minute. Lin Yu I don't even remember. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. He wrote "Twin Loyalties in Siam." 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe so. 

Mr. SouR^viNE. Wang Yu-Chuan? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. H. J. Timperley? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. SouR^vINE. W. Wynne Williams ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't even recall him. 

Mr. SouR'wiNE. C. J. Robertson? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't even recall him. 

Mr. Sourwine. A. Arthur Schiller? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't recall him. 

Mr. Sourwine. Would you say, then, that there are no Communist 
writers represented in that issue of the magazine; that is, the June 
1936 issue ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In that issue certainly to the extent of my knowl- 
edge at the time as editor, no. 

Senator Watkins. May I inquire just what do you mean by your 
personal knowledge ? Are you seeking to make a distinction between 
that and their reputation ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. What name was read here ? Harriet Moore ? 
1 have no personal knowledge that she is a Communist. 

Senator Watkins. Was she reputed at that time to be a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think so. I don't remember hearing 
that. 

Senator Watkins. Was she generally considered so in your IPR 
circle ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In 1936 ? 

Senator Watkins. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Were any of those persons reputed to be Commun- 
ists as far as you know? 

Mr. Lattimore. On this list? 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Manclel, will you read into the record at this time 
the testimony of Mr. Wittf ogel that appears at 309 in the open session ? 

Mr. Mandel. I read from the testimony of August Wittf ogel, dated 
August 7, 1951, on page 309, part I of the hearings, reading as fol- 
lows 

Senator Ferguson. Just one moment. 

Senator Watkins. Wliat hearings, Mr. Mandel? 

Mr. Mandel. Hearings before this committee. 

The Chairman. All right. Senator? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

88348— 52— pt. 9 16 



3134 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Mandel. Quoting: 

Dr. WiTTFOGEL. The Chi story I have told. No doubt I have said I discussed 
it with Lattiuiore. The Asiaticus story I told you and I talked to Lattimore 
after he came back here. We talked about Asiaticus, too, several times. I told 
him the story the way I knew it ; I told Lattimore that. 

Mr. MoRKis. Will you read what the reference is to, Mr. Mandel, on 
page 308 ? 

Mr. Mandel. On page 308 Dr. Wittfogel says in answer to Mr. 
Morris' question : 

Will you relate to us the circumstance of your meeting a man known as 
Asiaticus in Shanghai in 1937? 

Dr. Wittfogel. The name Asiaticus was known to me in Germany as the 
name of a German Communist who had held a leading position in the German 
party, who was known as Heinz Moeller, and who I think in the middle of the 
twenties left Germany. His faction was defeated, and one of the ways of leaders 
of such groups would be to make themselves useful in Moscow and be reassigned, 
as Gerhardt Eisler was later on. 

This man went to China and participated in the early developments of the 
expansion of the Kuomintang regime, when there was cooperation with the 
Communist Party at that time, from Canton into Yangtze Valley up to 1927. 
And Moeller, who, like I think a number of other Communists held a position 
in the Kuomintang government, and Mr. Stalin would say "apparatus." 

He worked there in some kind of press or publicity 

Mr. FoRTAS. That is "as." I think you misread a word. 
Mr. Mandel (reading). 

as Mr. Stalin would say "apparatus." 

He worked in some kind of press or publicity center and put his articles or 
some others together in a book which was published I think in 1928 in Germany 
under the title, translated, "From Canton to Shanghai." 

Mr. Morris. Did a Communist publishing house publish that Dr. Wittfogel? 

Dr. WiTTroGEL. Yes, that is right, in Germany, and I was interested. He was 
a protege of Gerhardt Eisler's, and I think this was not a very good book. 

Mr. Morris. Keep going. 

Mr. Mandel. Yes. [Beading :] 

It was poorly written, and I think it was dull stuff. So I inquired about the 
circumstances and I heard more about this Heinz Moeller. It was published 
at that time. It was just before the fall of Eisler ; and Eisler wanted it, and 
he was then powerful. The book was printed. 

Mr. MoBRis. You say you met Asiaticus in Shanghai in 1937? 

Dr. Wittfogel. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances? 

Dr. Wittfogel. I met him in the house of, I think, some doctor, some people 
from Europe who I don't think were political. I don't remember any details 
about them. They said there was a man who would like to see me, and he 
introduced himself as Asiaticus-Moeller. He told me he had been expelled — 
maybe I knew it, I don't remember exactly how this came about — from the party 
but that he had made his peace with the great father in the Kremlin and that 
he had been back in Moscow and that he was in good standing again, and at that 
time he was writing for Izvestia, which would indicate indeed he was in good 
standing. 

Mr. Moiu?is. You say you did meet him in Shanghai in 1937? 

Dr. Witttfoof.l. That is right. 

Mr. MoKRLS. Dr. Wittfogel, 1 would like to present to you a copy of a letter 
which we introduced into our official files here as exhibit No. 4 on the first day 
of tlie hearings. 

Mr. IMoRRis. That is enough, Mr. Mandel. 

Mr. Mandel , will you get the next document ? Will you identify this 
document, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a document from the files of 
the Institute of Pacific Relations headed "Meeting on Pacific affaire. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3135 

April 8 ; Motiliev, Voitinsky, ECC, OL, Harondar, HM." And there 
is a penciled notation which is photostated, marked "1936." 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, I offer you this document, and ask you 
if you ever have seen this before. 

The Chairman. I take it that you want him to see the original? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe I have ever seen it before. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember a meeting in April 8, 1936, in Mos- 
cow in which those people enumerated there were present? 

Mr. Lattimore. I recall one or more meetings with members of the 
Soviet group of IPR. I couldn't tell you how many and I couldn't 
tell you the exact dates. I am perfectly willing to accept that this 
is the record of one of them. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, I wonder if you would read on page 3 
the full paragraph beginning with "O. L." The reference "O. L." is to 
you, is it not, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore; Presumably, yes. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read aloud that paragraph, please, Mr. Latti- 
more? Will you read this aloud, please, this paragraph? 

Mr. FoRTAs. Did you say the third paragraph ? 

Mr. Morris. No, the only paragraph beginning with "O. L." The 
larger paragraph. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. [Reading :] 

O. L. asked if Motiliev had received both his long letters on the question of 
P. A. and Motiliev said that he had only received the second. O. L. said that 
his main difficulties had been two: (1) When he took over the editorship of 
P. A — 

That is Pacific Affairs — 

it was after the last conference, and he and E. O. C. — 

That is Mr. Carter. 

did not want to determine a definite policy alone, since that vpould be a one-sided, 
American decision. Therefore, no very clear policy was determined and this 
is to be done at Yosemite, he hopes. (2) He has had trouble getting material 
from the different councils. The lack of articles on 

The Chairman. Will you raise your voice a little. I cannot hear 
you. 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Japan is not the lack of asking. The Japanese council has promised articles 
on rice, silk, and the cooperative movement. In the first five issues, it was 
never known whether there would be enough material until a week before the 
magazine went to press. At the beginning P. A. had no prestige and it was 
difficult to get people to write for it. Some of the articles in the first issues are 
padding, due to lack of material. Likewise, the Soviet council did not send 
in its articles. The one article received from them was made the leading 
article. It has only been in the last 2 or 3 months that O. L. has felt that he 
could freely turn down articles. In the case of the Isaacs article, there was 
not enough material for that issue. The Chinese council did not object to the 
article and would give no answer to it and no other article on the same sub- 
ject. It is impossible to get in touch with the Chinese Communists to get an 
answer from them. O. L. did not know about the writer in China Today or 
he would have tried to get the answer published in P. A. rather than in China 
Today. However, when it was published in China Today, the question came 
up whether the precedent should be set of republishing materials from othei 
magazines. It had never been done, and P. A. was supposed to publish new 
material. Therefore O. L. decided to print an extract of the answer and give 
it a prominent place. O. L. had previously tried to get other articles on the 
Chinese Revolution, but this was the only one he could get. It was made a 
leading article in New York. In the next issue of P. A. there is to be an 



3136 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

article by a Communist writer which is antagonistic to the Chinese council and 
the British council. He likewise does not represent the Soviet council. This 
will be a leading article and will represent a personal opinion. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that the end of the paragraph? 

Mr. Morris. Will you continue reading, please. 

Mr. Lattimore. I"' thought you just wanted that one paragraph. 

Mr. Morris. Is that a new paragraph? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. That is enough, then. 

The Chairman. No. It goes over on the next page. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. [Heading:] 

Motiliev said that it would be better to put as leading articles one that repre- 
sented the point of view of one of the councils. O. L. said that he was pre- 
pared to consider this idea 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Actually the difference is that counsel and the Sena- 
tors are looking at a mimeographed copy. Mr. Lattimore is look- 
ing at the photostat of the original. I believe as the photostat shows 
it, he has ended the reading of the paragraph. On the mimeo- 
graphed copy it goes over to the top of the next page, and it can't be 
determined whether it is a new paragraph or the same paragraph 
because they are not indented. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, you testified before the Tydings Com- 
mittee that you did not know Dr. Chi to be a Communist. 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I probably did ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. I think we had better read into the record, Mr. Man- 
del, page 887 of the Tydings committee hearings. 

Mr. Chairman, will that last document be received into the record ? 

Mr. Sour\vine. As identified by Mr. Mandel as coming from the 
files of IPR and as being the document commented upon by the wit- 
ness. Here is the page of the Tydings transcript. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask one question which I think the 
witness has already answered. The letters "O. L." stand for Owen 
Lattimore ; is that right ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

The Chairman. You so understand that. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, this is the Tydings hearings 

Senator Smith. I think Dr. Lattimore made it clear, but lest it 
may not be, the photostatic copy from which he read was a photostat 
of the original. Have you seen that before ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think I ever saw it before 

The Chairman. I want to ask a question of Mr. Mandel. Mr. 
Mandel, is this a true and correct photostatic copy of an original instru- 
ment found in the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Mandel. It is. 

The Chah^man. It may be inserted in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 478" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 478 

Meeting on Pacific Affairs; April 8; Motiliev, Voitinsky, ECC; OL; 

Hakondab; HM 

Voitinsky said that the magazine had been reviewed twice in Tikhii Okean and 
there the general opinion about it had been stated. Such a magazine which is 
important should have a definite aim. Although different opinions are expressed 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3137 

in it, there should be a general line in it and this should be the struggle for peace. 
The general tenor of the articles should be to show that collective security is the 
only possible way to peace. This aim is so wide that it can be supported by 
writers of all shades of opinion. At present the magazine has no line and this 
is the main weakness. 

Voitinsky said that the article by Whyte is interesting but incorrect in its 
approach. It is a program article, about IPR policy. It treats China and Japan 
on the same footing and shows no aggressor. How can there be an objective 
study of the Pacific if no aggressor is shown. Whyte says that the causes 
of the Pacific problems are internal— in China, currency ; in Japan, lack of 
raw materials — and England and America should help to solve these problems. 
But when no aggressor is recognized, the proposals are idealistic and weak, for it 
is impossible to introduce a new economic policy before the aggressor is stopped. 
Voitinsky said that in PA China is not treated as a subject, only as an object. 
Therefore the writers neglect the possibility of China itself affecting the solu- 
tion of China's problems. This is historically incorrect, and it makes it impos- 
sible for students of the question to understand the current movements within 
China. The Isaaks article, which is written at a very low level and is incorrect, 
is an attempt to show something about the internal situation in China. 

Voitinsky said that there was little in PA on the internal situation in Japan. 
This is due to the fact that Japan is not regarded as an aggressor. But it is 
important to know how strong Japan is socially and economically internally. 
Likewise there is little on the question of nationalities — about Mongolia, and 
the colonies in the Far East. No effort is made to show that Japan is trying to 
exploit national culture and national feelings. In fact O. L. in his earlier 
articles gave Japan the benefit of the doubt and said that Japan might help these 
peoples. 

O. L. asked if the article on the Japanese Monroe Doctrine was not about these 
questions. Voitinsky said that it was good about the juridicial aspects. But 
since the magazine represents an organization which is struggling for peace, 
there were much greater possibilities for writing on these subjects. 

E. C. C. said that the constitution of the IPR states as its object the study of 
the conditions of the peoples on the Pacific. There is a controversy within the 
institute as to whether the object is entirely scientific study, or active effort 
to maintain peace. 

O. L. said that the review of the magazine in Tikhii Okean was entirely correct 
when it said that PA refiects the chaotic conditions in the opinions in capitalistic 
countries. 

Motiliev said that if the object is to reflect the conditions and life of the 
peoples, still PA does not study the real social and economic life inside the coun- 
tries — not in Japan, Korea, and other colonies. An objective study would in- 
evitably show exploitation by the Japanese. Likewise the internal conditions 
of China are not shown — what are the causes of the rise of red China ; what are 
the causes of the contradictions in China ; what are the tendencies within China. 
The same is true about Australia and the U. S. S. R. 

O. L. asked if Kathleen Barnes' article did not give something on the United 
States. Motiliev said that it only gave one side of the picture of the Soviet Far 
East. 

Motiliev said that even if the aim of PA was to characterize the general con- 
ditions, it was impossible to do this without a definite idea about them. When 
no definite idea is given for a magazine, the wrong idea is conveyed by it. M 
there is no position taken on the problem of Japan's aggression in China, which 
is now the fundamental problem in the Pacific, then it seems as if the wrong 
position had been taken. In practice PA gives a definite political analysis, 
which is one-sided and therefore incorrect. For instance the Eggleston article 
fully justifies Japan, and tries to prove that England and the United States 
are to blame for the far-eastern situation. O. L. pointed out that this article 
reflects a definite body of opinion. Motiliev said that he was not against pub- 
lishing this article, but also PA must give an analysis of the contradictions that 
are found in Eggleston's analysis. This is very difiicult to do, because the IPR 
has members in all countries involved. But in order to satisfy most of the 
members of the institute, Motiliev thinks, it is necessary that PA have a definite 
political position. As a result of the present absence^ of such a position, the 
magazine is in fact directed against the ideal of peace. Even if the IPR doesn't 
aim to work for peace, it certainly does not aim for war. 

E. C. C. said that the magazine is not the whole of the institute. In some 
of the other IPR work these analyses of internal conditions are being given, 



3138 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

e. g., a book will appear this month by a Japanese on Japanese penetration of 
mandated islands; a study is completed by a Korean on land utilization in 
Korea ; a study is being done on agricultural organization in New Zealand which 
shows the waste that there has been in the land policy there ; the book Key Eco- 
nomic Areas in Chinese History is written by a Marxist and gives an analysis 
of Chinese internal development. O. L. said that in the next issue there was 
to be an article on the rise of land taxes and the fall of dynasties in Chinese 
history, which was written by a Chinese, treating China as a subject, not an 
object. E. C. C. said that PA will be without focus until the Soviet members 
contribute to it regularly. PA has never received the article from Voitinsky on 
agrarian problems in China. When Soviet articles appear regularly, they will 
make the issues clearer and will show up the negative quality of many of the 
oflipr irticlos 

Motiliev said that another way to accomplish this was through greater objec- 
tivity in the editorial work. For instance the Isaacs article on Perspectives of 
the Chinese Revolution is written on a very low level and is incorrect. An article 
on this question by a bourgeois journalist of good standing would be interesting. 
But this is a Trotskyist article which doesn't reflect the opinion of any of the 
councils of the IPR. A very serious answer to this article was published in 
China Today, but only extracts from this answer were printed in PA. Motiliev 
said that the Soviet Council could not answer this article, but he had suggested 
tliat some of the Chinese leaders give an answer. Motiliev said he did not know 
who the editor of China Today is, but his answer expressed the opinion of 50 
million Chinese. Motiliev asked why this article was made the leading article. 
The leading article should express the opinion of some one of the member 
Councils, aiotiliev said that in general he did not think the magazine was objec- 
tive, although some of its objects, such as trying to show different shades of 
opinions, were carried out. The Isaacs article is only one example. For in- 
stance the article on Fisheries, while on the whole objective, contains some incor- 
rect information. Possibly this was due to the fact that the author did not know 
the facts. Motiliev wrote to O. L. about these inaccuracies and nothing appeared 
in PA about them. In general Motiliev thought that O. L. made it more difllcult 
for himself by publishing leading articles like the Isaacs article and not publish- 
ing the answers to them. 

O. L. asked if Motiliev had received both his long letters on the question of 
PA and Motiliev said that he had only received the second. O. L. said that his 
main difficulties had been two : 1. When he took over the editorship of PA 
it was after the last conference, and he and E. C. C. did not want to determine a 
definite policy alone, since that would be a one-sided, American decision. There- 
fore no very clear policy was determined and this is to be done at Yosemite, he 
hopes. 2. He has had trouble getting material from the different councils. The 
lack of articles on Japan is not for lack of asking. The Japanese Council has 
pi'omised articles on rice, silk, and the cooperative movement. In the first five 
issues, it was never known whether there would be enough material until a week 
before the magazine went to press. At the beginning PA had no prestige and it 
was difficult to get people to write for it. Some of the articles in the first issues 
are padding, due to lack of material. Likewise, the Soviet Council did not send 
in its articles. The one article received from them was made the leading article. 
It has only been in the last 2 or 3 months that O. L. has felt that he could freely 
tui-n down articles. In the case of the Isaacs article, there was not enough 
material for that issue. The Chinese Council did not object to the article and 
would give no answer to it and no other article on the same subject. It is im- 
possible to get in touch with the Chinese Communists to get an answei* from 
them. O. L. did not know about the writer in China Today or he would have 
tried to get the answer published in PA rather than in China Today. However, 
when it was published in China Today, the question came up whether the prece- 
dent sliould be set of republishing materials from other magazines. It had never 
been done, and PA was supposed to publish new material. Therefore O. L. de- 
cided to print an extract of the answer and give it a prominent place. O. L. had 
previously tried to get other articles on the Chinese Revolution, but this was the 
only one he could get. It was made a leading article in New York. In the next 
issue of PA there is to be an article by a Communist writer which is antagonistic 
to the Chinese Council and the British Council. He likewise does not represent 
the Soviet Council. This will be a leading article and will represent a personal 
opinion. 

IMotiliev said that it would be bettor to put as lending articles one that repre- 
sented the point of view of one of the councils. O. L. said that he was prepared 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3139 

to consider this idea, but often before he has not had an important article which 
represented a council. O. L. said that if the Soviet group would show in their 
articles a general line^a struggle for peace — the other articles would naturally 
gravitate to that line. O. L. said that he had no organizational authority to tell 
the councils what kind of articles they should send in. He hopes that this will 
be settled at Yosemite. 

Motiliev said that it was a dangerous editorial mistake to publish the Chamber- 
lin review. It is not because the review was about a book by Stalin, but because 
in the same review there was a review of a book by Chernavin. This is a very 
important political question for them here. 

They have no objection to having Stalin's book reviewed and they are willing 
to answer a review, but the review must be done with due respect, to a person in 
Stalin's position. Motiliev asked why the book was given to Chamberlin who 
was known to be so anti-Soviet. (Incidentally Chamberlin's book has not been 
received here for reviewing.) 

O. L. said that he had not realized Chamberlin's position, but as soon as he 
learned of the Soviet opinion about Chamberlain, he canceled an article on the 
Soviet press which he had asked from Chamberlin. 

Voitinsky said that he had not entirely understood E. C. C.'s answer to the 
question of the aim of the institute. Voitinsky said that recently many organiza- 
tions which had previously had no political opinions were taking definite positions. 
The IPR is a big organization and is a kind of unofficial league in the Pacific. 
Whyte in his article says that part of the aim of the IPR is to find a solution for 
the situation in the Pacific. Therefore the IPR must take some line on this 
question. Voitinsky said that he thought the IPR and PA must have as its aim 
the struggle for peace — through scientific study and research aimed in that 
direction. Voitinsky said that last year this point was not urged here, because 
the Soviet group was still new in the IPR, but more because the objective situation 
was not what it is today. 

ECC said that this change in attitude toward political questions in the IPR was 
already reflected in the change in the agenda for the fifth round table. Originally 
this was to be about the changing balance of power in the Pacific — just an objec- 
tive appraisal of the shifting balance. Now it is to discuss methods of peaceful 
change and solution of the problem. 

O. L. said that he was willing to have P. A. reflect such a line, but these positive 
ideas can only be started positively. He cannot dictate to the other councils what 
they must write. He must first have an original article taking a stand, and this 
will make the others write to that point. 

Voitinsky said that it would he possible to answer the Whyte article. 

O. L. pointed out that his articles in PA had been criticized in Tikhii Okean, 
but never in PA. He said that when Motiliev wrote to him about the fisheries 
article, he had sent the corrections to New York, but they were too late to be in- 
cluded in the original article. He did not know that Motiliev wanted to have 
sections of his letter published. O. L. has considered starting a letter section in 
PA. but to date there hasn't been enough material to make it possible. 

ECC said that the Isaacs and Chamberlin articles were great mistakes, and 
would not be repeated in the future. H. M. said that O. L. had nothing to do 
with the Chamberlin reviews. That was done on the responsibility of the New 
York Office. 

Motiliev suggested that there be articles on sonie of the following: (1) In- 
ternal relations in China, Japan, and the Japanese colonies. (2) Economic de- 
velopment of the U. S. S. R. as a whole and the Soviet Far East. (3) General 
conditions in the Pacific, the contradictions between countries, the question of war 
and peace. Articles like Eggleston's should be printed, but they should be 
criticized and answered. 

O. L. said that he tried to get an answer to this article from many people, but 
they all said that it was the opinion of the Australian Council and that there 
was no need to answer it. Voitinsky said that the American council should have 
answered it. 

Motiliev made the following proposals as to organization of the magazine. A. 
The leading article should always express the opinion of a definite council. It is 
customary to have the leading article more or less official. B. Articles by un- 
known and irresponsible writers should not be published on important questions. 
But there should be articles by leading personalities who are of interest, no mat- 
ter what they represent ; e. g., Bywater and Asiaticus. C. There should not be 
criticisms of books and opinions of the leading personalities of the various mem- 
ber countries. It is unnecessary to have such criticism, it is not part of the work 
of the IPR, and it embarrasses the members of the councils. 



3140 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Voitinsky said that now the Soviet group would try to write articles for PA. 
O L said that if they would start it would give him a stronger hand with the 
other councils. The British have been good about providing articles so far, but 
the other councils have not been so good. „.. , 

O. L. said that he wanted a Soviet review of the Webb book. Voitmsky said 

that it could be reviewed. 

X I e King Edward 

Stalin 

HiKOHITO 

The Chairman. What is the next question ? I think you were asked 
to read, were you not, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I asked that it be given to the witness so that the 
question may be asked of him if he did so testify before the Tydings 
hearings. 

(Mr. Lattimore examining document.) 

Mr. Lattimore. The question is from Senator Hickenlooper : 

During your acquaintance with Mr. Chi prior to the war or during the war did 
you believe him to be or did you learn him to be a Communist at any time? 

Dr. Lattimore — 

It should have been Mr, Lattimore, of course. 

Dr. Lattimore. No, sir ; no, sir. 

Is that all you want me to read ? 

Senator Ferguson. Just a moment. You had two answers, mean- 
ing you answered both ; yes sir ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I just repeated my answer, I suppose. I am read- 
ing the transcript. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I think that answers counsel's question. 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify before this committee in executive ses- 
sion that you never at any time knew that Dr. Clii was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I probably did. May I see the record? 

Mr. Morris. Executive session, 155, top of the page. 

Mr. Lattimore. Question by Mr. Morris : 

Dr. Lattimore, did you ever at any time know that Dr. Chi was a Communist? 
Mr. Lattimore. Young Dr. Chi? 
Mr. Morris. Young Dr. Chi. 
Mr. Lattimore. No; I didn't. 

Mr. IMoRRis. Mr. Lattimore, did you testify in executive session 
that only on one occasion did you meet Dr. Chi's father in China? 

Mr, Lattimore. I testified that I met Dr. Chi's father in China only 
on one occasion. Later my memory was refreshed and I wrote in to 
the committee explaining that I met him twice. 

The Chairman. You were asked what you testified to. 

Mr. Morris. You did testify to that effect and you did also send 
a letter to the committee stating that you had learned otherwise. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. Is this the letter you sent to the committee ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This i§ the letter, yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may that letter be received into the 
record as a change that Mr. Lattimore wanted to make in his testi- 
mony in the executive session before this committee ? 

The Chairman. Let me see it. 

Mr. Sourwine. If that is the case, the witness should adopt this 
letter as his testimony now. I assume that is his desire. 

Mr. Lattimore. Sure. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3141 

Mr. Morris. Except, of course, that he does go on record to show 
that he learned this some time ago and not today. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. He adopts this letter as written as his testimony 
now. 

The Chairman. There is your letter ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is correct. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 479" and is 
as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 479 

The Johns Hopkins University, 
Walter Hines Page School of International Relations, 

Baltimore 18, Md., September 2, 1951. 
Hon. Pat McCarran, 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Seriate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Chairman : It is my recollection that in executive session of your 
subcommittee on July 13 I was asked about meeting Prof. K. C. CM, then Com- 
missioner of Education in Shansi Province, in China, in 1937, and that I con- 
firmed that I had. It is further my recollection that I was asked whether I had 
met him in China on any other occasion, and that I replied that I could not 
remember that I had. 

It has now been drawn to my attention that in a public session of your sub- 
committee Dr. K. A. Wittfogel testified that he and I had met Professor Chi, also 
in Shansi Province, in 1935. This testimony has refreshed my memory, and 
I wish to confirm that I did meet Professor Chi in 1935, in company with Dr. Witt- 
fogel and, if I remember rightly. Dr. Woodbridge Bingham. I believe also that 
I remember that Professor Chi was advised beforehand of our coming to call 
on him by Dr. Walter Judd, now Representative Judd, who was then a missionary 
in that province, and whose mission was on cordial terms with the Chi family. 
I wish to add to my previous testimony accordingly. 
Yours sincerely, 

[s] Owen Lattimore, 
[t] Owen Lattimore. 
OL:c. 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify in executive session before this com- 
mittee that you had no reason to believe that Dr. Chi could be a 
Communist? That is 155. 

Mr. Lattimore. Again young Dr. Chi ? 

Mr. Morris. Young Dr. Chi. 

(Mr. Lattimore examining transcript.) 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Senator Ferguson. And you had no reasons to believe that he could be a 
Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. Had anyone ever told you he was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. I think that is enough. 

Mr. Lattimore, did you in executive session before this committee 
testify that no one ever told you that Dr. Chi was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. Probably. 

Mr. Morris. Didn't you just read it there? 

Mr. Lattimore. You are referring to this ? Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Your answer is "Yes" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My answer was "Yes" ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you not testify in executive session before this 
committee that no one had related to you the circumstances, the inevi- 
table conclusion of which would have been that Chi was a Communist ? 



3142 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I just read that in the transcript. 

Mr. Morris. That is page 156, another place, Mr. Lattimore. You 
may want to see it. 

Mr. Lattimore. I did see it just now. 

Mr. Morris. Very good. Your answer is "Yes" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

ISIr. Morris. Did you ever receive an official report to the effect that 
Dr. Chi was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I can recollect. 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify before this committee that you did not 
have any reasonable grounds to believe that Dr. Chi was a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe I did. 

Mr. Morris. 155. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is my testimony : 

In the case of Dr. Cbi, my principal contact with him was during the war 
years, when he was holding extremely high and confidential positions under the 
Chinese Nationalist Government. 

Senator Ferguson. And you had no reasons to believe that he could be a 
Communist? 

Mr, Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read further? I think there is another refer- 
ence there. 
Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Had anyone ever told you he was a Communist? 
Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. So your answer to that last question is — — 

Mr. Lattimore. That that was my testimony. 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify before this committee in executive 
session that you had no evidence that he might be a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I presume so. 

Mr. Sourwine. The same page, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. What was that page? 

Mr. Sourwine. 155. 

Mr. Lattimore. What was the (question? 

The Chairman. Read the question again. 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify before this committee in executive ses- 
sion that you had no evidence that he might be a Communist ? 

The Chairman. Page 155 of the executive hearing. 

Mr. Lattimore. Oh, yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Had you any evidence that they might be Communists? 

Mr. Lattimore. In the case of Miss Chomeley I knew her much too little to 
have an authoritative opinion one way or another. 

In the case of Dr. Chi, my principal contact with him was during the war 
years, when he was holding extremely high and confidential positions under the 
Chinese Nationalist Government. 

Mr. Morris. Well, did you testify before this committee in executive 
session that you had no evidence that he might be a Communist? 
Mr. Lattimore. Senator Ferguson then goes on : 

And you had no reasons to believe that he could be a Communist? 
Mr. IjAttimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. So what is the answer to that question ? 
Mr. Lai'itmore (reading) : 

Mr. INIORRis. Had anyone ever told you that he was a Communist? 
Mr. Lattimore. No. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3143 

Mr. Morris. Had anyone ever related to you the circumstances, the inevitaoie 
conclusion of which would have been that he was a Communist? 
Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson". That is, the answer was "No" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The answer was "No." 

The Chairman. Then the answer to this question is "Yes," that he 
so testified ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think that is the same question, Mr. Morris ; 
is it? 

Mr. Morris. May I see page 155, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Fortas. The record speaks for itself. 

Mr. Sourwine. The record does speak for itself. It has been read 
here now by the witness and it is a part of the record. There is no 
point in quibblino; over what it said. 

Mr. Fortas. That is how I characterize it. I agree with you. 

Mr. Sourwine. I think counsel's original question was intended to 
simplify it, but it hasn't turned out that way. 

Mr. Morris. Did you not testify that Dr. Chi, as far as your con- 
tacts with him were concerned, held an extremely high and confidential 
position in the Chinese Nationalist Government ? 
' Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that Dr. Chi wrote for China Today 
under the name of Hansu Chan ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't think I ever knew that. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever know it at all ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My memory is not clear. It may have been in one 
of the transcripts of tJiis committee that I have read. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you read the testimony on page 81 
of the executive session, the executive session with Mr. Lattimore? 

]\Ir. Sourwine. If it is Mr. Lattimore's testimony, why not give it to 
him and ask him if he testified that way ? This is a part of the record. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, will you read page 81 — your testimony 
on that page relative to this question? 

The Chairman. Read the question again, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know he wrote for China Today as Hansu 
Chan ? 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that he contributed to China Today? 

Mr. Lattimore. I learned that some time ago. I didn't know it at the time tnai, 
I knew him. 

Mr. Morris. Did he not make a contribution under a pseudonym? 

Mr. Lattimore. So I have been told. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember what the pseudonym was? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. When were you told that, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that was in some publication by Kohlberg or some 
other member of the China Lobby. 

Mr. Morris. "Wlien were you told that Dr. Chi wrote for China 
Today? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think my answer in executive session covers my 
recollection of it, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. And what is that, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That I read about it in some publication. 

Mr. Morris. Can you give us the date ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I can't. 



3144 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that China Today was a Communist or 
pro-Communist publication? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I didn't, to the best of my recollection. 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify before the Tydings committee that 
you did not know the New China Daily News to be Communist m 
1942 or 1943? 

Mr. Lattimore. May I amplify my answer on the subject o± China 

Today? .^ , 

Mr. Morris. The question, Mr. Lattimore, is, Did you testify be- 
fore the Tydings committee that you did not know the New China 
Daily News to be Communist in 1942-43. 

Mr. Lattimore. I mean the previous question on China Today. 

The Chairman. What was the previous question ? 

Mr. Morris. Did you know China Today to be Communist or pro- 
Communist? 

Mr. Laitimore. I don't think I ever knew that until much later, 
and among my reasons for not thinking it Communist was the fact 
that its contributors included Mme. Chiang Kai-shek, Geraldine 
Fitch, now active in the China lobby; her husband, George Fitch, 
of the YMCA 

Mr. Sourwine. Are you testifying from memory, Mr. Lattimore.? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I am testifying from looking up some copies 
of China Today recently. 

Mr. Sourwine. Go ahead. 

Mr. Lattimore. Senator Schwellenbach ; Freda Utley, a former 
member of the staff of this committee ; Emory Luccock, L-u-c-c-o-c-k, 
pastor of the American Church in Shanghai; Edward Hume, di- 
rector of the Christian Medical Council; Harry B. Price; and Father 
Charles Meeus, M-e-e-u-s. In November 1938 it published an inter- 
view with Bishop Paul Yu Pin and in the same month Walter Judd 
spoke at a meeting sponsored by the American Friends of the Chinese 
People of which China Today was the organ. On the cover of the 
July 1939 issue was a picture of the Chiang Kai-sheks. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, at this point may I have referred to the 
record our exhibit No. 54 which was introduced in open session on 
August 42, 1951. Mr. Mandel, will you read that letter into the record 
at this time? I would like that to apply to this part of the record, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a letter dated December 13, 
1939, addressed to Mr. Max Granich, China Today, 168 West Twenty- 
third Street, New York, N. Y. It is evidently a photostat of a car- 
bon. There is a typed signature of Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. Was the document taken from the files? 

Mr. Mandel. The document was taken from the files of the In- 
stitute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read the first paragraph, Mr. Mandel? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes. 

Deab Mk. Granich : Thank you for your letter of December 11. I am afraid 
that my position as editor of Pacific Affairs makes it impossible for me to join 
the editorial board of China Today. I am a member of the international secre- 
tariat of tlie Institute of Pacific Relations). This means that one of my em- 
ployers is the .Japanese council of the Institute of Pacific Relations. There has 
already been a considerable kick about my being on the board of Amerasia. It 
is probably hotter for me not to invite extra kicks by going on the board of 
China Today, which is more partisan, and more obviously partisan, than 
Amerasia. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3145 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Can that be shown to the witness ? 

(Document shown to Mr. Lattimore.) 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Lattimore, is that a copy of a letter which you 
wrote ? 

Mr. LATTmoRE. Yes, it is. 

There is another paragraph here that has not been read into the 
record. 

Mr. Morris. Would you like to read it in, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The whole thing is in the record ; is it not ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes, it is, Mr. Sourwine. Would you like to read it, 
Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. LATTmoRE (reading) : 

I have been desperately busy the last few months completing a book, and cou- 
sequently have published very little in magazines. I am expecting to write some 
articles in the next few months, but I think you will agree that these articles 
would have their maximum impact if not published in magazines which are 
devoted to "the cause of China." 

Mr. Morris. "The cause of China" is in quotes. 

Mr. Lattimore. "The cause of China" is in quotes. 

Mr. Morris. That is in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Did you testify before the Tydings committee that you did not Know 
the New China Daily News to be Communist in 1942-43? 

Mr. Lattimore. 1942-43 ? Yes, I believe I did. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have introduced or a 
reply to the record at this time exhibit No. 35, which was introduced 
into the record on July 26, 1951, page 180. Mr. Mandel, will you 
identify this document and read it into the record ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a document, of a carbon copy, 
in the files of the Institute of Pacific Eelations. It is dated October 
17, 1910. At the top are initials ECC and WLH. It is addressed 
to Mr. F. V. Field, American Peace Mobilization, 1116 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, D. C. The typed signature is Owen 
Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read, Mr. Mandel. 

Mr. Mandel. Yes. [Reading :] 

Dear Fred : Enclosed I am sending you an article submitted to me by Asiaticus. 
For readers of Pacific Affairs, it would read like propaganda, and rhapsodical 
propaganda at that. As the article is also too long, however, we might be 
able to shorten it, pruning out a great many adjectives but still retaining the 
realistic points. However, it is too late for our December issue. 

I am therefore sending you the article as is, to see whether you may have 
any suggestions for placing it. 

The sooner you can look in on us, the better we'll be pleased. 
Yours, 

Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I see that? 
Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you identify that letter, Mr. Lattimore ? 
Mr. Lattimore. This is quite evidently a letter that I wrote; yes. 
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, may I ask for a short recess in execu- 
tive session. 
The Chairman. Just 1 minute. 
Mr. Lattimore. The date is 1940, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. May I ask for a short recess in executive session ? 
The Chairman. Very well. 



3146 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Could the committee retire, this room being as 
full as it is. 

(Whereupon, at 11: 15 a. m. the subcommittee Avent into executive 
session.) 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 30 a. m., the hearing was reconvened.) 

The CHAiR]NrAN. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, may I add to an answer that I 
made to Mr. Morris sometime ago, when he was asking me about 
Communist contributors to Pacific Affairs? 

The Chairman. Was that this morning? 

Mr. Lattimore. This morning's session, yes. 

The Chairman. What was the question? We want the question 
first. 

Mr. Lattimore. Could you remember the question, Mr. Morris? 
It was about Communist contributors to Pacific Affairs. 

The Chairman. Will the reporter read the question? 

Mr. Latti3iore. It was a question something about "Did you ever 
publish Communist contributors?" or something of that sort. 

Mr. Morris. When you were editor of the publication Pacific Af- 
fairs, did you ever publish an article by a person whom you knew 
to be a Communist ? 

The Chairman. Is that the question ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the question to which I refer. I merely 
wanted to point out 

The Chairman. What was your answer to it, please? Mr. Morris, 
will you give the question so the reporter can go through his notes ? 

Mr. Morris. The question was : When you were editor of the pub- 
lication Pacific Affairs, did you ever publish an article by a person 
whom you knew to be a Communist ? That was the seventh question 
on my list here. 

(The record was read by the reporter as follows:) 

Mr. Morris. When you were the editor of the publication Pacific Affairs, did 
you ever publish an article by a person whom you knew to be a Communist? 
Mr. Lattimore. Apart from Russian contributions, no. 

Mr. Lattimore. I simply wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that 
my memory had slipped a rather obvious cog, since, on page 6 of the 
statement that I read before this committee there is the following : 

The Chairman. Page 6 of what ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Of my statement prepared for this committee. 

* * * an article by a Chinese Communist which was clearly labeled as 
such and was presented as an example of what the Chinese Communists were 
saying. 

Mr. Sourwine. You identified that, I believe, under questioning, as 
an article written by Man Ning, is that right? 

Mr. Lattiimore. I think I may have said that it might have been 
by him. My recollection is not clear. As I recall, it was an article 
about the Chinese Communists in northwest China which had been 
originally ]H-iiited in China, and was translated and sent to us, and 
we published it, labeling it as a translation of a Chinese Communist 
article, giving it as an example of what the Communists were saying 
in China. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, will you take this issue of June 1936, 
Pacific Affairs, and tell us which article there is referred to as the 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3147 

article by a Commimist writer which is antagonistic to the Chinese 
council and the British council, referred to in the minutes which have 
been presented to you of the April 8, 1936, meeting in Moscow? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't point to such an article, Mr. Morris. I be- 
lieve the note that was read was something about a Chinese Com- 
munist, wasn't it? 

Mr. Morris. What note are you referring to, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. The minutes of that meeting in Moscow. 

Mr. Morris. There is no reference to a Chinese Communist writer 
here, the statement is 

Mr. Lattimore. May I see what the original text was ? 

Mr. Morris. That is a stencil, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

In the next issue of PA, there is to be an article by a Communist writer which 
is antagonistic to the Chinese council and the British council. 

The Chairman. T\niat is the question, please? 

Mr. Morris. Wliat is the Communist article that you referred to ? 
According to these minutes, you say it is coming out in the next issue 
of Pacific Affairs, which you now have before you. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't recall. I don't believe it refers to this ar- 
ticle by Asiaticus, if that is what you mean. 

Mr. Morris. Does not the article by Asiaticus — is it not antagonis- 
tic to both the Chinese council and the British council? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think it is antagonistic to the Chinese 
council. 

Mr. Morris. It talks about usury on the part of the Chinese Gov- 
ernment, doesn't it ? 

Would you look at it a minute, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. Where is the article now? Can you give me the 
page reference ? Where is the statement about usury ? 

Mr. SotTRWT^NE. Do you mean to say, Mr. Lattimore, while we are 
waiting to find that, that you were not referring to the Asiaticus 
article during this conference with Motiliev, Voitinsk}^, and the 
others ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; my recollection is that at that time, or just be- 
fore that time, while I was in China, I had been trying to get hold 
of a Chinese Communist article of some kind, and that I thought I 
had, but eventually failed. My recollection is that happened several 
times. There may be some correspondence about it in the files. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You are saying that, to the best of your memory, 
Asiaticus was not a subject for discussion at this conference? 

Mr. Latti3iore. To the best of my memory, this reference in the 
conference is not to Asiaticus. 

Mr. Morris. When did that particular article go to press, Mr. 
Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't i-emember. 

Mr. Morris. May I get back to this other question about the usury ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Surely. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read the first paragraph on the top of page 
167. 

Mr. Lattoiore. The whole paragraph ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Lattijiore. On the top of page 167. 



3148 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Nor was this all. Besides the lucrative business for the banks and bondholders, 
there were other advantages, some of which may be quoted from clauses of the 
loan agreement. First of all, the loan was to be secured on "the entire revenues 
of the Chinese Maritime Customs." In addition to this, the Chinese Govern- 
ment undertook that "the administration of the Chinese Maritime Custom Serv- 
ice shall remain as at present during the currency of this loan." This makes it 
possible to understand another of the clauses reading as follows : "During the said 
term of 45 years, the amortization shall not be increased nor the loan redeemed 
nor converted by the Chinese Government." 

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp., which alone took half of the loan, 
became at the same time the depositary bank of the Maritime Customs, the biggest 
source of Chinese public income. The gigantic usury and national humiliation 
contained in this one loan agreement are guaranteed to this day by the British 
supervisory control of the Maritime Customs and executed by the Honkong and 
Shanghai Banking Corp., the trustees of almost all of the British loans to the 
Chinese Government. 

Mr. Morris, I should like to point out that that paragraph would 
have been entirely welcome to the Chinese council of the IPR as of 
1936. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. What is the national humiliation referred to ? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. That refers to the kind of loans — the kind of loan 
agreements that China had to sign before the time of the Nationalist 
Government, and protests against such loans and demands for revisions 
of such treaties were part of the policy of the Chinese Nationalist 
Government. 

Mr. Morris. And what was the usury referred to, on whose part? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say that referred to the British. I may add 
that this particular article by Asiaticus was submitted to the British 
in advance, met with protests from them on the interpretation of the 
facts, but none of the facts were disputed and the criticism or sugges- 
tion was not made that it was an article by a Communist. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Lattimore, if the chairman will permit 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. So that we may get correctly what you referred to 
as your reference earlier in your statement to an article by a Chinese 
Communist, is that from page 6 of your statement ? 

;Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. You said it was clearly established in the Tydings 
committee hearings that in fact — 

I had never called the Chinese Communists agrarian reformers, nor had Pacific 
Affairs carried articles calling them agrarian reformers, with the single excep- 
tion of an article by a Chinese Communist which was clearly labeled as such, 
and was presented as an example of what the Chinese Communists were saying. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. I had asked you at the time if that article that you 
referred to was not the article Agrarian Democracy in Northwest 
China by Mau Ming. 

Mr. Lattimore. I had forgotten the name Mau Ming, but by its title 
of the article, I recognize it. That is the article. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is the article that you did refer to ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And does that appear in this issue of Pacific Affairs ; 
does it? 

Mr. Latitmore. It does not appear in this issue of Pacific Affairs, 
and in the issue in which it does appear the article is identified, the 
original Chinese publication is identified, the name of the translator 
is given. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3149 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Now, in this conference that yon were having, sir, 
on April 8, tlie memorandum recites that yon stated that the next issue 
of Pacific Affairs — that is, the next issue after the conference— was 
to have an article by a Conununist writer which would be antagonistic' 
to the Chinese council and the British council. 

Are you now stating that there was in fact no such article published 
in the next issue of Pacific Affairs, that is, this June issue that we have 
before us? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is my recollection. My general recollection 
of that period, as I say, is that as editor of Pacific Affairs I was try- 
ing to get something that would represent the Communist problem in 
China ; this problem was of growing importance, other publications 
were trying to get material on it, and I was trying to find a Chinese 
Communist who would write an article for us; maybe it would have 
to be translated or something of that kind, 

I never succeeded in getting one. 

Mr. SouRwiXE. Where was that conference held, this meeting be- 
tween yourself, Motiliev, Voitinsky, Harondar, and HM. I suppose 
that is Harriet Moore ? 

iNIr. Lattimore. Yes; that must have been Harriet Moore. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Wh.ere was it held? 

Mr. Lattimore. AMiere was it held? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What country and city? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. It was held at the office of the Russian council of 
the IPR, as far as I remember. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. In Russia? 

IVIr. Lattimore. In Russia, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. In Moscow? 

Mr. Lattimore. In Moscow. 

Mr. SouRwixE. Actually, that was April 8, and we are talking about 
the June issue. Had not the June issue already closed at that time? 

Mr. Lattimor. I couldn't tell you whether it had or not. 

Mr. SouR^^^XE. You had a 6-weeks lag when you were editing it 
from Baltimore, and a much longer lag when you were out of the 
country, isn't that right ? 

Mr. Latti^more. I am not sure what the lag was. There may have 
been an article submitted which was considered, you know, just a 
Communist tirade and not what we want, and therefore thrown out, 
or something of that sort. 

Mr. SouRwixE. Certainly you had to close this book at least a 
month before it was printed, did you not ? _ 

Mr. Lattimore. You may remember, ]Mr. Sourwine, that when I 
asked you about the lag in publication, I was extremely uncertain 
on the subject. 

Mr. SoFRwixE. Well, you edited this magazine for some years, 

didn't vou ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes; I did. 

:Mr. Sottrwixe. What is the shortest lag you ever had between 
closiiiiT fiud printiiiji? That is something you would remember. 

Mr.^^LATTi^iioRE. Xo: it is simply that I have a general memory 
that there was a lag. I don't remember exactly what it was. 

Mr. Sox RwixE. Are you telling us here, Mr. Lattimore, that you 
could have edited a magazine for years and not known what the dead- 
line was? 

88348— 52— pt. 9— — 17 



3150 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. If I had edited a magazine that always had the 
same deadline, I would probably remember. But this was an ex- 
tremely shifting business. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you say shifting? 

Mr. LA-mMORE. Yes; because I was editing from different places, 
and my general recollection is that the first few years, you see — I be- 
gan in 1934 — if we had an April issue, that it should appear in April, 
that in the early years, owing to delay in getting material, sometimes 
the April issue would apjDear after April, or the June issue after 
June. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I am not asking you when it appeared. I am simply 
asking you what was your minimum time lag, what was your deadline 
schedule, how long before the actual publication did you have to close 
the forms, did you have to have your copy in ? 

You dealt with that. You met that every quarter. Now, cer- 
tainly you can give us some idea about what it was. 

Mr. Lattimore. I met it in a different way in many quarters, Mr. 
Sourwine. 

The Chairman. You are not answering the question at all, Mr. 
Lattimore. Get at the question, please. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am answering it to the best of my ability. 

The Chairman. Give your best judgment, if you cannot do any 
better, as to what the lag was. That is the question. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe there ever was any definite lag, 
unless maybe after 1938, when I was editing from Baltimore and we 
were close at hand. 

Mr. Sourwine. You had to have your copy in at least a week before 
the magazine was out in print, did you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I couldn't tell you. I never handled that. I sent 
my stuff to the New York office, and the New York office handled the 
whole question of printing, printing contracts, distribution, mailing 
out, and so on. I never had anything to do with it. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are testifying under oath here, sir. Are you 
telling this committee as editor of this magazine you don't know 
whether you had to have your copy in at least a week before the pub- 
lication date ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am saying, Mr. Sourwine, that I don't remem- 
ber what the deadline was. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether you had to have it in at least, 
a week before the publication ? 
. Mr. Laitimore. I should think probably at least a week; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Don't you know whether it had to be at least a 
week? 

Mr. Lattimore. But the publication date itself would vary, Mr. 
Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. By publication date, you are probably talking about 
the date appearing on the magazine, and I am talking about the date 
that it actually came off the press. Don't you know that you had to 
have your copy in at least a week before the actual publication came 
off the press ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I will accept your estimate of that. 

Mr. Sourwine. I am not estimating. I am asking you to state 
categorically, do you know or do you not know that you had to have 
your copy in at least a week before that magazine came off the press ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3151 

Mr. Latteviore. All that I can testify, Mr. Sourwine, is that we 
used to correspond back and forth with New York, and wherever I 
was, and they would say "Will the copy be in by" such and such 
a date, and when the copy was in, it was up to them to get it to the 
printer and get it out. 

Mr. SouR^^^NE. Are you saying that you do not, then, know that 
you had to have your copy in at least a week before the magazine 
came off the press ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not know anything more than that I would, 
by correspondence, fix a date with the New York office when I would 
regard my copy sent in for the magazine as complete. 

Mr. Sourwine. And would that date bear any relationship to the 
date at which you hoped to get the magazine off the press i 

Mr. Lattimore. It would bear a varying relationship. 

Mr. Sourwine. Would you, when you were fixing that date, think 
about the time when the magazine would probably come off the presSj^ 
if you met that deadline ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was not thinking in terms of when it would come' 
off the press. I was thinking in terms of getting it out and dis- 
tributed. 

Mr. Sourwine. Well, would you think, when you were fixing the 
deadline for getting copy in of that, in terms of when you would get 
the magazine out and get it distributed? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwnne, you have all of the documents of 
thelPR. 

The Chairman. Strike that from the record, if you please. Mr. 
Lattimore, when the chairman calls your attention to this, please desist 
from further expression. 

The question, Mr. Lattimore, has been propounded to you, and you 
answered it this morning or yesterday when you said that probably 
6 weeks, at times, was the lag. Now, if you do not know what the 
lag was, state to the counsel that you do not know. If you know what 
it was, state to the counsel that you know. If you cannot, then give 
your best estimate as to what the lag was. 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't state what the lag was. When Mr. Sour- 
wine first asked me that question, I thought it was rather a trivial 
question. If he wanted to have 6 weeks, I was perfectly willing to 
have it. 

The Chairman. There are no trivial questions here. We try to 
get away from the trivial stuff. We got away from that yesterday. 
We closed that ^yesterday. 

Mr. Sourwine. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, when you, as editor of this magazine, 
would fix a date by which you w^ere going to try to get your copy in — 
in other words, a deadline — did you think of that deadline in relation 
to the time when you would be able to get the magazine out and 
distributed ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, what was the relationship in your mind there 
between the deadline which you fixed and the time when you would 
be able to get the magazine out and distributed ? 

Mr. Lattimore. At this date, I don't know. As I have already 
said, I think it varied from quarter to quarter. 



3152 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How much did it vary ? 

Mr. Laitimore. I don't recall. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did it vary by as much as a month from quarter to 
quarter ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It might easily have. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You mean that when you fixed your deadline, 
Mr. Lattimore, you didn't know within a month when you were going 
to be able to get the magazine off the press, if you met that deadline? 

Mr. Lattimore. In the first, part of my editing of Pacific Affairs, 
when I first started editing it from China, later when issues had to be 
edited while I was traveling as in this case from China all the way 
to America, it would vary considerably. 

]\Ir. Soi-RwixE. Do you think, Mr. Lattimore, that you could pos- 
sibly have gone on off to Russia, be there in April, and have left the 
question of your June issue up in the air ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; there was an assistant editor in Xew York, 
and to cover contingencies for a thing like that I would, like my travel- 
ing, for instance, I would try to have extra articles on tap for that 
issue so that the assistant editor could make a last-minute choice 
and get out a full issue. 

I may point out that this Communist article which I was expecting 
■could easily have been an article mailed from Peking to New York 
without my seeing it, in the manner in which that periodical was 
edited, and it may never have come through, or may have come 
through and been rejected. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Are you through ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Surely. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lattimore, at the time you 
were having this conference on the 8th of April  

The Chairman. Where? 

Mr. SoFRWixE. The conference in Moscow with Voitinsky and Mo- 
tiliev and others, don't you know now, and didn't you know then 
whether the copy was all in for the forthcoming June issue of Pacific 
Affairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember at all, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. When you said here "In the next issue there is to be 
an article by a Communist writer," were you not referring to an article 
which had already been edited, the copy on which had already been 
sent to the printer? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not necessarily. I could easily have been referring 
to an article that was promised. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Sourwine, may I suggest there that the lan- 
guage is antagonistic. I would think that that would presuppose 
that at that time the article was in existence, and Dr. Lattimore had 
known it and had seen it, because he was pronouncing it antagonistic. 

Mr. Soi'RWTNE. That is the point I w^as attempting to make. Senator. 

Isn't that true, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, an article by a Chinese Communist 
would automatically be displeasing to the Chinese council. 

The Chairman. What is our question? Just a moment. 

Mr. Sourwine. I asked him if it was not true that he w^as referring 
to an article which was in existence which was antagonistic. 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; not that I recall. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3153 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Lattimore, do you think it is possible that this 
magazine, Pacific Affairs, could ever have come off the press in less 
than a month after the time that the copy was all in ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. Just a moment. Mr. Lattimore wants to consult me. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Surely. 

The Chairman. Read the question, please. 
(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Sourwine, I am incompetent to answer that 
question. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That was the June issue. Do you know when it 
came off the press? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't. 

The Chairman. He says he is incompetent to answer that question. 

Mr. Sourwine. I asked him another one. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Sourwine. I will show you the table of contents page and ask 
you the question again. Do you know when that magazine came off 
the press; that is, the June issue for 1936? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't know when it came off the press. 

Mr, Sourwine. There is a time stamp and a copyright number on 
that page, are there not ? What is the date stamp there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This stamp on here ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. Is that a copyright stamp ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Don't you recognize it as such ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't. I don't think I have ever seen one 
before. The stamp here, if it is a copyright stamp, is May 8, 1936. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is there a copyright number there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. There is a circle with a C in it, and C-l-B-299322. 
It is the first time in my life I have ever seen such a mark. Perhaps 
it is a copyright mark. 

Mr. Sourwine. You edited the magazine for how many years? 

Mr. Lattimore. I edited the magazine for nearly 7 years. 

Mr. Sourwine. And this is the first time that you have ever seen 
the symbol, a circle with a C in it, or knew what it meant ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The first time I have ever seen it. 

Senator Smith. May I inquire, is that on other copies also ? 

Mr. Sourwine. There is a similar copyright stamp on all other 
copies that we have been able to find in this volume, sir. 

Mr. Lattimore. Does it show a considerable variation ? 

Mr. Sourwine. There is some variation, ]\Ir. Lattimore. That ques- 
tion had best be answered by giving the facts. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, did you not know that a copy 
was sent to the Patent Office? 

Mr. Lattimore. My knowledge of copyright procedure. Senator 
Ferguson, is extremely vague. All I know about copyright procedure 
is that I believe anything that is to be copyrighted has to be deposited 
in the Library of Congress. Isn't that right ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to state this 
for the record, the issue here, and I show it to the Chair as I speak, of 
Pacific Affairs for March bears the copyright symbol and number 
B-289470, and the date February 5, 1936. That is a variation of 3 
days from the other one. That is, this is the March issue which was 
copyrighted February 5. 



3154 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

The June issue, the date which was given, was copyrighted May 8. 
The September issue bears copyright number B-309436, was copy- 
righted August 20. And the December issue copyright B-320637, 
bears the date September 10, 1936. 

I might also inform the committee, and if the committee desires 
testimony or an affidavit on this point it can be secured, a telephone 
check was made by the staff of the committee with Mr. Clyde S. Ed- 
wards, Chief of the Serials Division of the Library of Congress, who 
furnished this information ; 

That Pacific Aifairs dated June 1936 was stamped May 11, 1936, the 
date when that piece was received in the Periodicals Division for shelv- 
ing; that the contents page, May 8, 1936, bears the copyright stamp 
OCIB-29932, and that is the date when the issue was received in the 
copyright office for registration, and that number is the copyright 
registration number. 

We are informed by Mr. Edwards over the telephone that the official 
records of the Library of Congress so show. 

If I might point out just one more thing. That means that this 
magazine was off the press on May 8. It was off the press sufficiently 
in advance of May 8 to have, by that date, reached the Library of Con- 
gress as the official depository for copyright. It was then less than 1 
month after the date on which the witness has testified that in Moscow 
he was stating that this issue was to have in it an article by a Com- 
munist writer which is antagonistic to the Chinese council and the 
British council. 

I would now like to ask you once more, Mr. Lattimore, whether you 
still want to say that that article which you were referring to there was 
not then in existence and the copy had not then been sent to the 
printer? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe it could have been, Mr. Sourwine, 
I have a general but clear recollection that there are a number of 
cases in my editorial corespondence with various people in which I 
referred to a future article as a certainty, and then it never came out 
in the magazine. 

Mr. SoTjRwiNE. You were not in this conference discussing Asiaticus 
at all ; is that your statement ? 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, the 
question of Asiaticus never came up. 

Mr. Sourwine. Wlio is By water ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Hector Bywater — I am not certain whether he was 
British or American. He, in the 1930's, was more or less the Hanson 
Baldwin of his time. He was a writer, especially on naval strategy. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was he pro-Communist, anti-Communist, conserva- 
tive, liberal ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say conservative. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you looked at the last page of this memoran- 
dum which has been shown you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I haven't. 

The Chairman. Have we a photostatic copy ? 

Mr. Sourwine. What we have here is typed. We can give him the 
photostatic copy if he prefers. 

You have the photostatic copy there if you wish ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The last page ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3155 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Tlie last page. And look at the third paragraph 
from the end of the page. Will you read that paragraph aloud, 
please? 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify Mr. Motiliev, Mr. Lattimore, too? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Motiliev was the head of the Soviet council. 

Motiliev made the following proposals as to organization of the magazine: (a) 
The leading article should always expr.ess the opinion of a definite council. It is 
customary to have the leading article more or less official. (6) Articles by 
unknown and irresponsible writers should not be published on important ques- 
tions. But there should be articles by leading personalities who are of interest, 
no matter what they represent; e. g. By water and Asiaticus. (c) There should 
not be criticism of books and opinions of the leading personalities of the various 
member countries. It is unnecessary to have such criticism ; it is not part of 
the work of the IPR, and it embarrasses the members of the councils. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Wliat magazine was referred to there? 

Mr. Lattimore. He was referring to Pacific Affairs. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. He was referring to Asiaticus, too ; wasn't he ? 

]Mr. Lattimore. He also refers to Asiaticus. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Having refreshed your memory by reading that 
paragraph what do you say now about whether Asiaticus was discussed 
at that conference ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mt. Motiliev may have brought up the subject of 
Asiaticus. 

The Chairman. Then he was discussed at the conference; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Lattimore. He was discussed by Mr. Motiliev. 

Mr. SoTjRwiNE. Can you say, Mr. Lattimore, whether you identified 
to these gentlemen who were at the conference the Communist writer 
to whom you referred, who was to have an article in the Pacific 
Affairs? 

Mr. Lattlmore. No ; I don't believe I did. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you not identify him as Asiaticus ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not to my recollection. 

Senator Ferguson. Could I ask a question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Could there be any other author in that particu- 
lar magazine which was the one published after you were in Moscow 
that could have been the Communist you were talking about ? 

Mr. Latitmore. Senator Ferguson, this is referring back to the 
conversation in 1936 

The Chairman. Answer that question. 

Mr. Lattimore (continuing). And my memory is necessarily 

The Chairman. Look at the magazine and answer the question. 

Senator Ferguson. And if there are any others that would be in a 
class of being a Communist outside of the one we have been talking 
about. 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not think Senator Ferguson, that this article 
to which you have referred, the Asiaticus article, or any other article 
in that issue, could be referred to as Communist. 

The Chairman. That is not the question. That is not the question 
at all. Strike that answer, Mr. Reporter, and read the question to the 
witness. 

(The record was read by the reporter.) 

Senator Ferguson. We were talking about Asiaticus. You say 
it is not him. Is there any other that it could be ? 



3156 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. May I amend my answer, tlien, to say that it is not 
he or any other. 

The C [I AIRMAN. All right. 

Senator Ferguson. Today, do you believe that Asiaticiis was a 
Coiumiinist ( 

Mr. LArriMORE. Today, according to the best of my knowledge, I 
believe he very likely was. I don't know of my own knowledge. 

Senator Ferguson. You qualify it by "very likely." You would 
not say he was i 

Mr. Lattimore. Not of my personal knowledge ; no. 

Senator Ferguson. From anything that you have read ? 

Mr. La'itimore. I have read other people's opinions, and my opinion 
would be second-hand. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, do you remember the context of the 
page that I sliowed you of that article ? You have it there before you. 
Will you look at it again and tell me whether there is an;5^'one else on 
that page whom you now know or believe to have been a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. The top name on the list is Harriet Moore, who has 
refused to answer the question whether she was ever a Communist; 
and, therefore, it would now be my supposition that she probably 
was. 

Mr. Sourwine. And were you referring to Harriet INIoore in this 
conference in Moscow when you spoke of a Communist writer who was 
to have an article in Pacific Affairs^ 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is there any other person on that table of contents 
listed as an author of an article who is now known to you or believed 
b}' you to have been a Connnunist '^ 

Mr. Lat-timore. There is nobody there known to me or believed by 
me to be a Connnunist, with the exception of Harriet Moore, and I 
am perfectly willing to accept Asiaticus as a Communist. But I don't 
know it of my own knowledge. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then is it true, Mr. Lattimore, that, on the basis of 
what you know or believe now, that article by Asiaticus meets the 
description which you gave in the Moscow conference of an article 
which you said was to be in the next issue of Pacific Affiairs? 

Mr. LAnTMORE. I don't believe this Asiaticus article meets the 
description. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, you now believe Asiaticus to be or to have 
been a Communist, is that right? 
Mr. Lattok^je. Very likely; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. He did not represent the Soviet council; did he? 
Mr. La'itimore. No; he didn't. 

Mr. Sourwine. This was a leading article; was it not? 
Mr. LA'rnMORE. It was one of the main articles. Technically, 
the leading ai'ticle is the first article in any issue, and I don't think 
we refer to subsequent articles. 
The Chairman. Get the answer. 

Mr. Lattimore. In that sense, it was not a leading article. The 
leading article is always the first one. 

The Chairman. He did not ask you for the sense. Was it or was it 
not a leading article? It is very easy to answer that question. 

Mr. Laitimore. T believe I am correct. Senator, in saying it was 
not a leading article. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3157 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Where did it appear in the magazine? 

Mr. Lati'imore. Second space. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How much space was devoted to the first-place ar- 
ticle? 

Mr. Lattimore. Page 15'7 to page 165, about eight pages. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How much space was devoted to the Asiaticus ar- 
ticle? 

Mr. Lattimore. 165 to 177. That would be about 12 pages. 

JSIr. SouRwixE. Was there any article in the magazine in greater 
length than the xVsiaticus article? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. v'^GTjRwiNE. What was that ? 

Mr. Lattimore. An article by Guenther Stein, the title of which is 
"Through the Eyes of a Japanese Newspaper Reader" ; and, without 
looking it up, I believe it is a review of the Japanese press. 

Mr. Morris. Is that the same Guenther Stein who was associated 
with the Sorge espionage ring? 

Mr. Lai-timore. I do not know that he was associated with the 
Sorge ring. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did this article represent a personal opinion, Mr. 
Lattimore i 

Mr. Lattimore. Which article? 

Mr. S;)URwixE. The article by Asiaticus. 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 

Mr. SoURWixE. AVas this article antagonistic to the British council? 

Mr. Lattimore. The British council criticized it; yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And you state, however, that it was not antagonistic 
to the Chinese council ; is that correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is correct ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And it is on that basis that 3^011 say that the article, 
even on the basis that you now know, does not, in your opinion, meet 
your description here of the article that you thought would be printed 
in Pacific Alfairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. Partly that, and partly my recollection that in 
1986 we were trying to get hold of a Communist Chinese contribution. 

Mr. Sourwine. I would like to ask this : When Motiliev 

Mr. Morris. You say you were trying to get in touch with them ? 

Mr. Lattimore. We were trying to get hold of a Chinese Commu- 
nist article. 

The Chairman. You stated that now on three or four occasions. 

Mr. Lattimore. In 11);>(), that was good editing, in my opinion. 

Mr. Sourwine. AVhen Motiliev spoke of Bywater and Asiaticus, did 
you understand him as using the two names as antithetical, as in any 
sense being opposite poles of opinion or approach? 

JNIr. Lattimore. Not necessarily opposite poles. 

IMr. Sourwine. He said there should be articles by leading person- 
alities who are of interest, no matter what they represent ; e. g.. By- 
water and Asiaticus. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. What did you understand "e. g." to mean ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Examples of different kinds of opinion. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes. But you did not take it that he was using the 
two names as in any sense antithetical ? 



3158 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lati'imore. Contrasting but not necessarily representing ex- 
treme poles. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. He did not, so far as you understood it, use the 
name "Asiaticus" in the sense of a Communist writer or a pro-Com- 
munist writer ? 

Mr. Lati'imore. Not to my recollection. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the public 
record at this time pages 16 and 17, from the executive session testi- 
mony of E. Newton Steely, 4213 Woodberry Street, University Park, 
Md., a member of the Board of Appeals and Review, Civil Service 
Commission, on February 25, 1952. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Together with the document there identified? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, Mr. Sourwine, together with the docu- 
ment identified. 

The Chairman. Is that in the record ? 

Mr. Morris. It is in our executive session record, Mr. Chairman. 
We would like it in the open session. 

Senator Ferguson. I move, Mr. Chairman, that it be made part of 
this open session. 

The Chairman. It will be made a part of this open session. 

Mr. Morris. And the exhibit attached ? 

The Chairman. And the exhibits attached. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that? 

Mr. Mandel. Excerpt from the testimony of E. Newton Steely, 
4213 Woodberry Street, University Park, Md., a member of the Board 
of Appeals and Review, Civil Service Commission, on February 25, 
1952, before the Senate Internal Security Committee, pages 16 and 17 : 

Mr, Sourwine. As now refreshed, can you testify whether you did tell Mr. 
Owen Lattimore about the Communist record of Dr. Chao-ting Chi? 

Mr. Steely. I think so, yes. 

Mr. Sourwine, Did you? 

Mr. Steely. Relying on the statement I made a day or two after the incident 
allegedly happened, at that time I said I did. I would say that statement is 
correct, 

Mr. SouBWiNE. You brought in the question you made in a day or two after 
the incident happened. What brought that into the picture? 

Mr. Steely, Looking at the document just handed me, 

Mr. Sourwine, You mean the document just handed you is a copy of a state- 
ment you made a day and a half or two days after the incident? 

Mr. Steely. Will you repeat that question? 

Mr. SouKWiNE. Do you mean that the document just handed you which you 
just glanced at is a copy of a statement you made a day or two after the incident 
of the conference with Mr, Lattimore? 

Mr, Steely. Apparently so. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this for the record as identified by the 
witness. 

Senator Ferguson. I wish you would look at this document again before I 
receive it and look at the statement here in the third paragraph from the 
bottom on page 1. You may want to look at the other two pages, 

I will receive it as Steely Exhibit No, 2. 

(Document referred to was received as "Exhibit No, 2" and filed for the 
record. ) 

Senator Ferguson. That indicates that after he looked at it, it was 
received in evidence. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you read the paragraph beginning 
at the bottom of page 1, in the report itself? 

Mr. Mandel is reading a paragraph commencing on the bottom of 
page 1. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3159 

Mr. FoRTAs. Mr. Chairman, may we see tlie entire transcript of this, 
because it has referred to what has gone before — the entire transcript 
of the record of your executive session ? Mr. Sourwine starts "As now 
refreshed." 

Senator Ferguson. Let the record show that it is being handed to 
you. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Thank you. 

Mr. Mandel. Tliis reads as follows : 

Dr. Kung Chuan Chi has been investigated by the Commission for his position as 
assistant language editor (Chinese), OWI, and his case is now pending before 
the Commission. In view of the fact that Mr. Lattimore is relying upon Dr. Chi's 
recommendation regarding Mr. Hong, the OWI representatives were also informed 
of the unfavorable information secured regarding Dr. Chi and his son, which 
included testimony to the effect that the young Dr. Chi is or was, until recently, 
a Communist and that he at one time was a delegate to the Third International 
in Moscow, and to the effect that the older Dr. Chi was removed from his position 
as commissioner of education in the Shansi Province because of Communist 
activities. 

Mr. Morris. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

(Exhibit referred to as "Steeley Exhibit No. 2" was marked "Ex- 
hibit No. 480," and "Exhibit No. 480-A," and are as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 480 

Septembes 2, 1943. 
Wm. H. McMiixen: 

As requested by you, Mr. Frank Marsh and Admiral McCullough of the Office 
of War Information were interviewed on August 31, 1943, relative to the case of 
Chew Sih Hong, Assistant Field Representative in the New York Office of OWI. 
IMr. Owen Lattimore, Director of Pacific Operations, OWI, who is sponsoring 
Mr. Hong and upon whose recommendation OWI requested that this case be 
reopened, was also present during this interview. 

Mr. Hong was originally investigated in New York for this position and was 
rated ineligible by the Commission (see Minute 4 of December 4, 1942). The 
file also shows that on November 30, 1942, the Commission was informed that 
Mr. Hong's services were terminated at the close of business November 15, 1942, 
as a result of information furnished the OWI by the Commission in a letter 
dated October 26, 1942. 

The Commission was subsequently informed under date of July 27, 1943, by 
Admiral McCullough that the information furnished it by Mr. Elmer Davis, 
under date of November 30, 1942, regarding the termination of Mr. Hong's 
services, was somewhat in error as Mr. Hong was separated from the New York 
Office of OWI for duty with the Army and that upon his return in the Spring 
of 1043 he was again employed in the New York Office as the New York Office 
was not advised of the fact that Mr. Hong had been declared ineligible by the 
Civil Service Commission. 

On the basis of Rear Admiral McCullough's letter of July 27, 1943, this case 
was reopened for the purpose of interviewing Mr. Owen Lattimore of San Fran- 
cisco and some additional investigation was also made. 

During my interview with Mr. Marsh, Mr. Lattimore, and Admiral McCul- 
lough, the evidence secured during investigation of Mr. Hong was discussed and 
they were advised fully regarding the substance of the derogatory informa- 
tion. 

As reported by Investigator H. R. Memering, who interviewed Mr. Lattimore 
in San Francisco, Mr. Lattimore does not know Mr. Hong personally and in rec- 
ommending him for retention in the Service, he is relying upon Dr. Kung Chuan 
Chi, Assistant Language Editor (Chinese) in the New York office of OWI. Mr. 
Lattimore has known Dr. Chi since about 1935 when he met him in Shansi 
Province in China. Mr. Lattimore is also personally acquainted with Dr. 
Chi's son. Dr. Chi Chao-Ting. IMr. Lattimore added little to the testimony 
given Mr. Memering in San Francisco. 

Dr. Kung Chuan Chi has been investigated by the Commission for his posi- 
tion as Assistant Language Editor (Chinese), OWI, and his case is now pend- 
ing before the Commission. In view of the fact that Mr. Lattimore is relying upon 



3160 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Dr. Chi's recommendation regarding Mr. Hong, tlie OWI representatives were 
also informed of the unfavorable information secured regarding Dr. Chi and his 
son. which included testimony to the effect that the young Dr. Chi is or was, 
until rfcciitly, a ('duuuunist and that he at one time was a delegate to the Third 
Intprnatitinale in Moscow and to the effect that the older Dr. Chi was removed 
from his position as Commissioner of Education in the Shansi Province because 
of Comnjunist activities. 

Mr. Lattimorc devoted considerable time to a discussion of factional sti'ife 
among the Chinese and possible interests on the part of witnesses giving deroga- 
tory testimony regarding Mr. Hong. He appeared inclined to explain away all 
accusations of connnunism made against Mr. Hong on this basis. He also ad- 
vanced as a reason for believing the Chinese Hand Laundry Alliance not to be a 
■Communist orgaiuzation the fact that this organization was composed of small- 
business men whose interests woiUd l)e affected adversely under communism. 
Mr. Lattimore said he could not understand why the story that the elder Dr. Chi 
was removed from his position as Minister of Education in the Shansi Province 
because of Communist activities would be circulated. Mr. Lattimore also stated 
that Dr. Chi was known to Congressman Walter H. Judd of Minnesota and that 
Congressman Judd. a former missionary, spent some time in Shansi Province dur- 
ing the time Dr. Chi was an official there. It was pointed out to Mr. Lattimore 
that testimony regarding Dr. Chi's removal was secured by the Commission both in 
New York and San Francisco. The information received in San Francisco came 
from a source found to be reliable in the past by the Commission. The informant 
did not know Dr. Chi personally but had to inquire about him to secure this 
information. That this latter source should be biased against Dr. Chi in making 
this statement ;!pp;^ars to be unlikely. 

After a lengthy discussion of the various angles in the case, such as the intri- 
cacies of Chinese politics, possible motives witnesses testifying might have, and 
so forth, as well as the derogatory testimony itself, Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Marsh, and 
Admiral M<-Cullou.gh were asked whether, in view of the information in the case, 
they felt that Mr. Hong .should be retained. Their statements were substantially 
as follows : 

Mr. Lattimore stated that wished to keep Mr. Hong on the job, that he had an 
efficient set-up in the Chinese Section in New York and wanted to keep it that way, 
that he has explicit coniidence in Dr. Chi, that Mr. Hong is under careful super- 
vision and even if he were a Communist that he is not in a position where he could 
do any damage, that the selection of suitable Chinese was a delicate matter and it 
is extremely difficult to obtain a competent employee who does not have connec- 
tions which might constitute leaks in the organization, that under the present 
set-up with Dr. Chi and Mr. Hong there had been no instances of confidential in- 
formation getting into unauthorized channels and that there had been no attempts 
on Mr. Hong"s part to use his present position for the spreading of Communist 
propaganda, and so forth. Mr. Lattimore also pointed out that Mr. Hong was 
recently used by the Army to teach Chinese to 224 officers in India. Mr. Hong was 
highly praised for this work in a letter from Col. Gilchrist of the United States 
Army. 

The substance of Mr. Lattimore's statements was to the effect that he wants 
to retain INIr. Hong and is still relying upon Dr. Chi's recommendation and 
knowledge of Mv. Hong, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Mr. Marsh stated that he recognizes the intricacies of Chinese politics and he 
feels that if I\Ir. Lattimore still wants to employ I\Ir. Hong, knowing the nature 
of the testimony against him. the ri.sk involved, etc., he would recommend that 
Mr. Lattimore be permitted to retain Mr. Hong as an employee of OWI in his 
present position. 

Admiral McCullough .said that if Mr. Hong was to be removed on the basis of 
the evidence that he had heard in the case that he felt that others higher up in 
the organization shoithl also go, that others had been retained against whom the 
evidence was more damaging than it was against Mr. Hong, that he would go 
along with Mr. Lattimore and I\Ir. Marsh in favor of Mr. Hong's retention in the 
Service. 

In view of the fact that Mr. Lattimore is placing so much reliance upon Dr. 
Chi, whose case is also pending before the Connnission at the present time, it is 
suggested that Dr. Chi's investigation be considered in connection with the Hong 
case. 

Mr. Lattimore was asked whether there was anything about Mr. Hong's serv- 
ices which could not be performed by other Chinese Translators and he said 
"No" but that he wished to keep his present organization in view of the fact 
that it was functioning efficiently. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3161 

In view of the testimony obtained during the subsequent investigation of Mr. 
Hong in San Francisco and the evidence secured in the investigation of Dr. Chi 
regarding Coiumunist activities on the part of liim and his son, I can see no 
reason why the Commission should disturb its previous rating of ineligibility 
in Mr. Hong's case. 

E. Newton Steely. 

(Exhibit 480-A is testimony from the E. Newton Steely executive 
session before this committee iind was requested to be inserted by Mr. 
Fortas, counsel to Mr. Lattimore, and is as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 480-A 

Excerpts From Testimony of E. Newton Steely on February 25, 1953, Volume 

185 

* * « « 4e ^ * 

Mr. Morris. Do vou remember having a discussion with Owen Lattimore in 
1943? 

Mr. Steely. Yes ; I recall the discussion. 

Mr. Morris. During that discussion with Mr. Lattimore did you inform Mr. 
Lattimore about the Communist record of a man named Dr. Chao-ting Chi? 

Mr. Steely. I am sorry, that comes directly under that area. 

Mr. Morris. Chi was not a Government employee, was he? 

Mr. Steely. Chi at that time was at the head of some section of OWL 

Mr. I\ToKRis. You are not thinking of PIr. K. P. Chi, are you? 

Mr. Steely. No. I was thinking of the Dr. Chi who Avas sponsoring Hong. 

Mr. Morris. We are not asking about that Mr. K. P. Clii. Dr. K. P. Chi, as you 
say was a man who was sponsoring a man who was then under investigation for 
loyalty. We are not going to ask you about that man. 

Mr. Steely. I wonder if you would mind giving me his full name? 

INIr. Morris. Kung Chuan Chi is the man you referred to. 

Mv. Steely. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. We are not asking you any questions about that particular man. 
That is K-u-n-g C-h-u-a-n C-h-i. We are not going to ask you any questions about 
that Mr. Chi. 

Mr. Sourwine. He is the man who is the Government employee ; is that right? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are talking about another Chi, Dr. Chao-ting Chi, C-h-a-o 
hyphen t-i-n-g C-h-i. 

Mr. Steely. As far as I can recall I never heard of that Chi. This Dr. Kung 
Chuan Chi I understand from the report had a son. What his name was 

Mr. Morris. Chao-ting Chi. 

Mr. Steely. I do not know whether he was an employee or not. 

Mr. Morris. I am telling you he was not. We want to ask you about the 
conversation that you had with Mr. Lattimore with respect to the younger Dr. 
Chi who was not a Government employee at the time. 

Mr. Sourwine. You volunteered the information here that you had an inter- 
view with Mr. Lattimore, did you not? 

Mr. Steely. Yes. I mentioned that in connection with my statement. 

Mr. Sourwine. Can you tell us where it was? 

Mr. Steely. Yes. That was in the office of Admiral McCullough who at that 
time was the Security Officer for OWL I believe it was in the Social S.Kurity 
Building. 

INIr. Sourwine. We are not asking for records or files. We are asking you this 
time only whether on the occasion of the conference with Mr. Owen Lattimore 
which you testified about, you did have with him, you told him about the Com- 
munist record of Dr. Chao-ting Chi. 

Mr. Steely. That is the one? 

Mr. Morris. That is right. 

Mr. Steely. Gentlemen. I cannot recall the details of that conversation. 

Mr. Sourwine. Would you tell the committee the an.swer to that question if you 
are able to refresh your memory with regard to it? 

Mr. Steely. I might say to you my only connection with this case was about 
a one-hour interview. I had nothing to do with the rating of the case or the 
previous investigation of the case. That is one hour that was spent approxi- 
mately eight and one-half years ago. 



3162 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Steely. My statement was to the best of my recollection I did. 

Mr. SouBWiNE. Your recollection is good on that? 

Mr. Steely. No, not particularly good. I have handled hundreds of cases since 

Mr. SouiiWiNE. Do you have any doubt in your mind you did so inform him? 
Mr! Steely. I have no doubt as far as Kung Chuan Chi is concerned, but 
I am not sure about the other Chi be is asking about. To the best of my recoUec- 
tiou I did, but I can't be sure. 

Senator Ferguson. You knew there was a father and son? 
Mr. Steely. Yes, from reading the file? 

Mr. Sourwine. If your recollection could be refreshed so that you were sure 
in your own mind what you had done, would you then testify to this committee as 
to what you had done in that regard? 

Mr. Steely. As to whether I informed him? 

Mr. Sourwine. As to whether you informed Lattimore of the Communist 
record of Chao-ting Chi, the younger Chi. You have said to the best of your 
recollection you did. If your recollection should be refreshed so that you were 
sure you did, would you so testify? 
Mr. Steely. I think so. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mt. Morris, do you have a document there? I do not want to 
have you identify this document. I want to hand it to the witness and ask him 
if this refreshes his recollection in that regard. 

Mr. Sourwine. I might say in justice to this witness, Mr. Chairman, this 
document was not obtained from this witness and I am quite sure this witness 
did not know it was in the possession of the committee up until the time it was 
handed to him. 

Mr. Steely. I have no knowledge of it being in your possession. 
Senator Fekguson. Is there any doubt about the fact this was your statement? 
Mr. Steely. It apparently is a photostatic print of a memorandum. I couldn't 
tell you whether it is an exact copy unless I checked with my word. I can't 
identify this as being an exact copy. It is addressed to Mr. McMillen and it 
is not signed. This has written "E. Newton Steely" which is my name. 
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recognize any of the pencil writings on there? 
Mr. Steely. No, sir. You mean these? 
Mr. Sourwine. Yes, the various marks. 
Mr. Steei^y. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Does it not refresh your memory? 

Mr. Steely. It refreshes my memory in this way ; it is quite similar, if not 
an exact copy, of a statement that I made shortly after my interview with Mr. 
Lattimore. I can't say that is definitely it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Does it truly recite what is does say with regard to that in- 
terview? 

Mr. Steely. I can't answer the question without checking with the original. 
Mr. Sourwine. No, the question of a true recital would have nothing to do 
with the original of this memorandum. 

Mr. Steely. My independent recollection of that interview is not suflScient 
to enable me to say that is a true recital. 

Mr. Sourwine. Except with regard to the original question as to whether you 
did inform Mr. Lattimore of the Communist record of Chao-ting Chi ; is that 
correct? 

Mr. Steely. That statement is correct, I think, and it is based upon the part 
of which you call my attention which apparently is my statement. I don't 
say it isn't. 

Mr. SoT.-RWiNE. Your independent recollection as now refreshed is that you 
did tell Mr. Lattimore about the Communist record of Chao-ting Chi; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Steely. No. I have a recollection that is independent of that statement 
in there as to whether I went in there with the son or not. I think I did. 

Senator Ferguson. You certainly would not the next day make a statement 
you did, would you? 

Mr. Steely. I would not. If that is a correct copy of the report that I made, 
I did. Anything that I said in that report which was made at a time that it 
was fresh in my mind and following an interview on which I had taken notes 
would be correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you any doubt as to the correctness of that? 
Mr. Steely. No; I do not have any — my position is this: Looking at it, I 
think it is a copy of the statement I made. But as to whether it is a true 
recital or an exact copy, I can't say. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3163 

Mr. SoURWiNE. That is a photostat? 

Mr. Steely. Apparently. 

Senator Ferguson. Would this refresh your memory? The third paragraph 
from the last : 

"During my interview with Mr. Marsh, Mr. Lattimore, and Admiral McCul- 
lough, the evidence secured during investigation of Mr. Hong was discussed and 
they were advised fully regarding the substance of the derogatory information." 

Mr. Steely. That no more than the other. 

Senator Ferguson. Does that not lead you to believe this is a copy? 

Mr. Steely. As far as my belief is concerned, yes. As to my testimony that 
it is, that Is something else. 

Mr. SoURWiNE. I am asking you about the young Chi who was not a Govern- 
ment employee. I am asking you whether you had information about him, testi- 
mony to the effect that in 1943 he was or has been until recently a Communist 
and that he at one time was a delegate to the Third Internationale in Moscow? 

Mr. Steely. All information that I had at that time was gotten out of the 
report of investigation. If I informed Mr. Lattimore to that effect, I had that 
information and he was told about it. 

Mr. SouBwiNE. Conversely, if you had it, did you inform him about it? 

Mr. Steely. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. This statement says that you did inform him about it, doesn't 
itv 

Mr. Steely. Yes. 

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you think you did? 

Mr. Steely. I think so, yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Does that refresh your memory ? We are not talking about 
anybody that had a job with the Government. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever know that this younger man, the son, had 
attended the Third Internationale in Moscow? 

Mr. Steely. Did I know it? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, from any documents or anything else? 

Mr. Steely. Basing my reply upon this document, I must have read that some- 
where in the file ; otherwise, I never heard of him before. 

Senator Ferguson. So you have every reason to believe that did come to your 
knowledge? 

Mr. Steely. I must have if that is a correct copy of the report of the inter- 
views. 

Mr. Sourwine. I don't mean to put you on the spot. All we can ask is your 
understanding. 

Mr. Steely. I must say you do a good job unintentionally, if I may say so. 

I would interpret this to mean information that was obtained as a result of 
investigation by the FBI or the other investigative agencies of the Government. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Steely, do you recall whether or not you told Mr. Lattimore 
that the New China Daily News was a Communist publication? 

Mr. Steely. No, sir ; I don't. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever know whether it was a Communist publica- 
tion? 

Mr. Steely, I never heard of the paper except when I read the file before I 
went down to see Mr. Lattimore. Whatever the file said about it is all I knew 
about the China Daily News. 

Senator Ferguson. Did it say that? 

Mr. Steely. I don't recall. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you look at the file before you came up here? 

Mr. Steely. Hurriedly. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you find that in it? 

Mr. Steely. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you say it wasn't in it? 

Mr. Steely. No, sir. I probably had just a few minutes to look at that file. 
It took me all morning to try to get it, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, if I may be forgiven, my attention was mo- 
mentarily diverted, and I missed the connection with the file the witness was 
talking about. What file are you talking about? 

Senator Ferguson. About the file in the record of the Civil Service Commis- 
sion. It is about a newspaper. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is why I am uncertain. Are you talking about a file 
regarding this newspaper you were just asked about, or some other file? 



3164 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Steely. As I understood the Senator's question as to whether I knew the 
new China Daily was a Communist paper, my answer was I had never heard 
of the pajK^r except what information I may have gotten from rea dug the 
Commission's file. 

Mr. Soruwi.xE. What file are you talking about, a file on this paper? 

Mr. Steely. The file pertaining to the investigation of Kung Chuan Chi and 
this other man, Hong. 

Mr. SouKwixE. Ydu are testifying here you could have acquired information 
about the North China Daily News in no otlier way than in connection with 
that particular investigation? 

Mr. Steely. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SoiiiWiNE. How could you be sure of that? 

Mr. Steely. I never heard of the paper otherwise. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you liear of it in that connection? 

Mr. Steely. If I ever heard of the paijer, if that is tlie name, it must have 
been where I got the information. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Why must it have been tliere? Did you ever investigate another 
matter involving another Cliinese? 

Mr. Steely. I didn't investigate tliLs case. I went down to make an inter- 
view. 

Mr. SorRwiNE. It is a very interesting statement. As I understand it, you 
have now testified you do not remember ever having any knowledge about the 
North China Daily News. 

Mr. Steely. That is right. 

Mr. SoT'RwiNE. If you ever did liave such knowledge, you got in in connection 
with a specifiel case. That is the testimony wliich is unusual. 

Mr. Steely. I do not see your point tliere. As I said a moment ago, I never 
heard of the North China Daily News or the Cliina Daily News, whichever is 
the correct name. 

Senator Fekgi sox. New Cliina Daily News. 

Mr. Steely. If it is referred to in tliat memorandum, all the information I 
got pertaining to those two cases or auytliing mentioned in there before going 
down to Lattimore was gotten from tlie Commission's file. 

Mr. SouinviNE. All tlie testimony about tliese two cases was gotten from the 
Commission's files, but we are asking now about a particular newspaper. You 
have testified you have forgotten wlien you ever knew anything about it. 

Mr. Steely. That is right. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. If you did know something about it, sliouldn't it be obvious 
you could have learned tliat in connection with anything you liave now for- 
gotten? 

Mr. Steely. Y'ou wouldn't learn it looking at the television or you wouldn't 
learn it from reading boolvs. You liave to get it out of some 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Your testimony would be credible if you said, and perhaps you 
did, that if you ever knew anything about that paper, it was information you 
got from the Commission's file. 

Mr. Steely. I thought that is what I said. 

Mr. SouRWixE. I understood it was information you got from these particular 
files and that is difterent. 

Mr. Steely. This is the only Chinese case I ever had anything to do with. 

Mr. SoLRWiNE. Even admitting the probability, if you did get it. it was in 
connect i(n with tliis case, actually if yt)u do not remember now anything about 
the paper, you can't say whether you ever did, or if you ever did, where you 
learned it, can you? 

Mr. Steely. I still think if I ever did hear of it, it must have been from this. 

Mr. Morris. You said just before you came down here you had a quick look 
at a particular file. Did you see that particular paper we have shown you in 
that file? 

Mr. Steely. I saw one comparable to that. I don't know whether it is an exact 
copy or not. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You were looking for that? 

Mr. Steely. Certainly. 

Senator Ferguson. To refresh your memory? 

Mr. Steely. That was the one thing I had to do with the case. 

Mr. Morris. Did you read a statement in that one by Dr. Chi, young Dr. Chi? 

Mr. Steely. I think so. I think the statement shown me here — there were 
about three pages of that. I had just a few minutes to glance at it. I couldn't 
tell you all that is in there now. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3165 

Mr. Morris. It was substantially the same statement you read earlier today? 

Mr. Steely. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. You I'ead over this paper down in your files? 

Mr. Steely. I glanced at it. I didn't have time to read it carefully. 

Senatcr Ferguson. Having- read over this down in the office, this one para^rraph 
you have been shown, do you not remember so that you can say without doubt 
that this is a copy of that document? 

Mr. Steely. I have stated. Senator, that I think it is. When you say without 
doubt, you have to compare each statement C! ntained therein. I think it is. 

Mr. Sourwine. Would you say it either is a copy of the same document or 
It is a clever simulation of it? 

Mr. Steely. I have said I think it is. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have no further questions. 

Senator Fekgitson, I do not want any doubt about whether this is a genuine 
document. You did not give it to us. 

Mr. Steely. I think that is an exact copy but I can't swear it is. I can swear 
I think it is. 

Senator Ferguson. You haven't any reason to doubt that it is? 

Mv. Steely. No. 

Senator Ferguson. That is all. 

There is annther document there that should be in evidence. 

Mr. Steely. This is a copy of the subpena. 

Senator Ferguson. We want that other paper that you read. 

Mr. Steely. Y>s : this is here. 

Senator Ferguson. That will be exhibit No. 3. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 3" and filed for the record.) 

( Thereu])on, the committee was recessed at 4 : 30 p. m. subject to the call of 
the Chair.) 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I Avoiild also like to introduce or refer 
to the record at this time, refer in the record at this time, the open 
session testimony of Mr. Karl Anofust Wittfogel, pages 288, reading 
as f olloAYS : 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Wittfogel, did you tell ]Mr. Lattimore about your experience 
with Dr. Chi in Germany in 1929? 

Dr. Wittfogel. We talked a great deal abrut Dr. Chi — Mr. Chi. I mean. 

Mr. Mo;;ris. Will you amplify that conversation you had with Owen Latti- 
more about your previous experience with the then Mr. Chi? 

Dr. Wittfogel. You see, there wasn't only one conver.sation. There were many. 
We had a lot of time. We traveled for days and sometimes we stayed for a 
half day or a day in a Chinese inn. Mr. Lattimore was very much inter ^^sted in 
Chi as quite a brilliant man. He was .iust writing the the.sis I have referred 
t(i, Key Economic Areas in Chinese History. 

Since I had met Chi. too, we discussed the things which, from my point of 
view, were Chi's interest in my ideas which he later on dropped without nmch 
major difhculty, so I don't know. I had practically a vested interest in Chi 
as a man who took up some of my ideas and Lattimore was interested in him. 
So naturally I told him about the circumstances I met him under, and that 
Chi had worked in the Comintern and came back at that time via Germany to 
America and that he was going on doing this political work. 

Mr. Morris. You did tell him both of your encounter with the then Mr. Chi in 
Germany as well as your encounter with Jaffe and Bisson in 1934? 

Dr. WiTTFOrEL. I sure did. 

Mr. Morris. Was there any episode that took place that would corroborate your 
recollection ( f the fact that you had these conversations with Mr. Lattimore? Did 
you visit anybody connected with <!'hi? 

Dr. WiTTFOGE!L. That is right. Professor Chi, who I think has come up in one 
of those epic features of the Lattimore story, namely, this letter he wrote to Mr. 
Barnes about Mr. Chi, where he mentidus the father and the son Chi. There he 
refers to exactly this old Professor ("hi who had a h-gh position at the university. 
I think he w;!s commissioner of education at that time of the Province of Shansi, 
and he had been head of the law school. 

We were kind of interested in how this Papa Chi would take his son's Com- 
munist adventures, and naturally we approached the nrntter subtly. Y"ou know 
that a Chinese is a very dignified man and well restrained. Like other fathers, 
you could see the papa was not too happy witli the way his son developed, but 
he accepted it as the fact. He loved him nevertheless. 
88348 — 52— nt. 9 18 



315(5 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

And then on page 301, we have, still in Dr. Wittf ogel's testimony : 

Point 2 : When you asked me about whether Lattimore knew that in these early 
days I was a Communist— he has later written me a letter in which he told me 
that he hasn't been aware of this— we do not have to refer to the nonexisting 
television set. As I said, all our talks about Chi the son and Chi the father made 
sense only in connection with the background of the Chis' story when it was 
perfectly dear that we were dealing with a man who had this Communist back- 
ground, and my relations were in the same set. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Before you go into point 2, Doctor, at one point in line with 
your previous testimony that you and Mr. Lattimore had gone to see the elder 
Chi, partially at least for the purpose of finding out how he reacted to his son's 
Communist escapades 

Dr. WiTTFOGEL. Not quite. We were in the town where he lived and we thought 
of looking him up. 

There is other testimony in that that is already in the record, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the transcript of 
this executive session, which I have just been looking through hastily, 
contains a good deal of additional material which, in my opinion, 
affects the probative value of the excerpts that have been put in the 
record, and also contained some material that is irrelevant, really, to 
the issues here. It seems to me that counsel might want to consider 
putting in some more of this executive session. 

The Chairman. That is a matter for counsel. We will see about 
that. 

Mr. Morris. We will come to a decision on that, Mr. Fortas. 

Mr. FoRTAs. May I at sometime take this up with you, and tell you 
what I noted ? 

Senator Ferguson. The other questions and answers that you want 
in, will you mark those? 

Mr. FoRTAs. Yes, if I may keep this until we get a few moments. 

Mr. Morris. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have 
introduced into the record, from the article Pacific Affairs, June 1936, 
to which reference has been made 

The Chairman. What year? 

Mr. Morris. June 1936. I would like to introduce the whole page 
of contents, together with page 155, which is a short sketch of the 
contributors in the current issue. 

It mentions here, under the second article : 

"Asiaticus" is the well-established pen name of a German writer who was 
formerly, under this name, the correspondent in China of Die Weltbuhue, and 
other German left-wing papers. He published, under the same name, a book 
called Von Kanton Bis Shanghai, 1926-27, which in 1929 was published in a 
Japanese translation. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, will it interrupt Mr. Morris' state- 
ment, to place something else in the record at this time ? 

The Chairman. We are placing that in the record ? You asked that 
that be inserted into the record ? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 



ESrSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3167 

(Material referred to was marked Exhibit No. 481 and is as fol- 
lows :) 

Exhibit No. 481 

PACIFIC AFFAIRS 

[Vol. IX, No. 2— June 1936] 

Page 

Years of Fulflliment — Harriet Moore 157 

The Financial Cutting Edge in the Partition of China — "Asiaticus" 165 

Throuch the Eyes of a Japanese Newspaper Reader — Guenther Stein 177 

Twin Loyalties in Slam — Lin Yu 191 

The Rise of Land Tax and the Fall of Dynasties In Chinese History — Wang 

Yu-Ch'uan 201 

Makers of Public Opinion About the Far East — H. J. Timperley 221 

The Settlement of the Australian Tropics — W. Wynne Williams 231 

The Rice Export From Burma, Siam, and French Indo-China — C. J. Robertson 243 

Pacific Affairs bibliographies : No. II : Native Customary law In the Netherlands 

East Indies — A. Arthur Schiller 254 

Book reviews. See also next page 264 

Editor : Owen Lattimore — Managing Editor : Catlierine Porter 

Associate Editors : W. L. Holland and Bruno Lasker. Editorial Correspondents : 
P. D. Phillips, Melbourne; Arnold J. Toynbee, London; G. deT. Glazebrook, 
Toronto ; D. K. Lieu, Shanjrhai ; Ro^er Levy, Paris ; Tomohiko Ushiba, Tokyo ; 
J. H. Boeke, Leyden ; Guy H. Scholefield, Wellington ; Conrado Benitez, Manila ; 
Frederick V. Field, New York. 
Pacific Affairs is published quarterly at Federal and Nineteenth Streets, Cam- 
den, N. J., by the Institute of Pacific Relations, Honolulu, Hawaii, U. S. A. : E. C. 
Carter, secretary-general. Executive and editorial offices, 129 East Fifty- 
second Street, New York ; Hilda Austern, business manager. Printed at Fed- 
eral and Nineteenth Streets, Camden, N. .!., U. S. A. Subscription price $2 
per year, post free; single copies 50 cents. Entered as second-class matter 
at the Camden Post Office at Camden, N. J., under the act of March 3, 1879. 
Copyright, 1936. 

Books Reviewed in This Issue 

Page 

Australia and the Far Bast, edited by I. Clunies Ross — H. J. Himjerley 264 

Australia in the World Depression, by B. Ronald Walker — Linden A. Mander 267 

Canada : An American Nation, by John W. Dafoe — A. Gordon Dewey 269 

My Country and My People, by Lin Yatang ; and T'len Hsia Monthly — Charlottee 

Tyler 271 

Sun Yat-sen : His Life and Its Meaning, by Lyon Sharman — Paschal M. D'Elia 276 

Japan's Place in the Modern World, by B. H. Pickering — M. Matsuo 278 

Japan's Policies and Purposes, by H. Saito — Jerome D. Greene . 281 

The Social and Economic History of Japan, by Eijiro Honjo — Hugh Borton 284 

The Manchu Abdication and the Powers, by John Gilbert Reid— R. T. Pollard 287 

Special Correspondent With Bandit and General in Manchuria, by A. R. LIndt — 

O. M. Green 289 

Organized Labor in Mexico, bv Marjorie R. Clark — Harry Conover 290 

New Zealand, by W. P. Merrell— J. B. Condliffe 292 

Soviet Communism : A New Civilization ?, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb — Kathleen 

Barnes 294 

The Soviet State, by B. W. Maxwell — Ryulchi Kajl 296 

Soviet Russia Fights Crime, by Lenka von K' erber — Margaret Miller 299 

The United States in World Affairs in 1934-35, by Whitney H. Shepardson and Wil- 
liam O. Scroggs ; and Survey of International Affairs, 1934, by Arnold J. Toynbee 

and V. M. Boulter — A. Whitney Griswold 301 

American Foreign Relations, bv Louis M. Sears — Edgar Mclnnis 303 

Commodity Control in the Pacific Area, edited by W. L. Holland — H. Belshaw 304 

Migration and Planes of Living, 1920-34, by Carter Goodrich, B. W. AUin and Marlon 

Hayes — Bruno Lasker 309 

Road to War, bv Walter Millis ; A Better Economic Order, by Rt. Rev. Msgr. John A. 
Ryan ; and The Need for Constitutional Reform, by William Y. Elliott — D. W. 

Brogan 311 

Eastern Industrialization and Its Effect On the West, by G. B. Hubbard, assisted by 

Danzil Baring — E. F. Penrose 314 

Trade and Trade Barriers in the Pacific, by Philip G. Wright — C. P. Remer 317 

Neutrality : Its History, Economics, and Law. Vol. I, by Jessup and Deak ; Vol. 
II, by Phillips and Reede ; Vol. Ill, by Turlington ; Vol. IV, by Jessup ; and Can 
We Be Neutral?, by Dulles and Armstrong — Lawrence Preuss 321 



3168 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Books reviewed may be purchased through this office, and will be mailed, post 
free, at the publislier's list price. Orders should be seut to Pacific Affairs, 129 
East r)2d Street. New York City. 

H.MiRiET MooiiE— is a Research Associate of the Institute of Pacific Relations, 
who has spent several periods of study in the U. .S. S. R. during recent years. 

•'AsiATicus" — is the well-established pen name of a German writer who was 
formerly, under this name, the correspondent in China of Die Weltbuhne and 
other German left-wing papers. He published, under the same name, a book 
called Von Kanton Big Shanghai, 1926-27, which in 1929 was published in a 
Japanese translation. 

GuENTHEB Stein — formerly correspondent of the Berliner Tageblatt, is now 
correspondent for several English newspapers in Tokyo. He is the author of 
Made in Japan (London, 1935). 

Lin Yu— an Associate Editor of the China Critic, of Shanghai, has lived in 
Siam. He edits the Oversea Chinese column of the China Critic and is an occa- 
sional contributor to the Chinese press. 

Wang Yu-Chuan — is an undergraduate of the National Peking University 
at Peiping. He has contributed to the leading Chinese economic journals, and 
the material on the present article is appearing also, in the Chinese, in Shih Huo 
(Food and Commodities). 

H. J. TiMPERLEY — is an Australian journalist of many years' experience in 
the Far East, who is now correspondent in China for the Manchester Guardian, 
and advisory editor of Asia. 

W. Wynne Williams — is a member of the Australian Council for Scientific 
and Industrial Research. 

C. J. Robertson — is attached to the Institut Internation d' Agriculture of Rome. 
He is the author of World Production and Consumption of Sugar (London, 
1934). 

A. Arthur Schiller — is Assistant Professor of Law at Columbia University. 

AMONG THE REVIEWERS ARE 

Linden A. Mander — Associate Professor of Comparative and International 
Government, University of Washington. A. Gordon Dewey — Chairman, Dept. of 
Govermuent and Sociology, Brooklyn College. Charlotte Tyler — a member of 
the Institute of Pacific Relations secretariat, specializing in Basic English. 
Paschal M. D'Elia, S. I. — now Professor of Missiology at the Pontifical Gregor- 
ian University, Rome, has spent 16 years in China ; is the author of The Triple 
Demism of Sun Yat-sen. M. Matsuo — with the South Manchuria Railway Com- 
pany. New York. Jerome D. Greene — Secretary of the Harvard Corporation. 
Hugh Lorton — a graduate student at Tokyo Imperial University. R. T. Pol- 
lard — Dept. of Oriental Studies, University of Washington. O. M. Green— for 
many years editor of North China Daily News, Shanghai. Harry Conover — an 
associate editor of Pacific Weekly and a teaching assistant in economics at the 
University of California. J. B. Condliffe — a member of the Economic and Fi- 
nancial Section of the League of Nations. Kathleen Barnes — a member of the 
staff of the Institute of Pacific Relations, working in Soviet research. Ryuichi 
Ka.ji — a staff member of the Asahi Institute of the Far East, Tokyo. Margaret 
I\IiLLER — until recently Lecturer in Commerce at the University of Liverpool, 
and attaclie'l to its research staff;* A. W. Griswoi.d — Instructor of History and 
research assistant in the Institute of International Studies, Yale University. 
Ed'jar M:'1nnis — Associate Professor of History, University of Toronto. H. 
Belshaw — Professor of Economics, Auckland University College, New Zealand, 
and editor of Agricultural Organization in New Zealand. Bruno Lasker — Asso- 
ciate Editor of Pacific Affairs. D. W. Brogan — -Fellow and Tutor of Corpus 
Christi College, Oxford. E. F. Penrose — of the Food Research Institute; author 
of Pcjpulation Theories and Their Application. C. F. Remer — Professor of Eco- 
nomics, University of Michigan; author of Foreign Investments in China. Law- 
rence Preuss — Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Michigan. 

Opinions expressed in Pacific Affairs are the individual opinions of the con- 
tributoi's or reviewers. Neither the governing body (the Pacific Council) nor 
any of llie constituent bodies (the National Councils) of the Institute of Pacific 
Reiatiiiiis liolds itself responsible for such statements of opinion. 

The Editors cannot undertake to return unsolicited manuscripts unless accom- 
pani.'d by stamiied addressed envelopes or International Reply Coupons. 



♦Has frequently visited the Soviet Union. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3169 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Discussion was had earlier today about the publica- 
tion China Today. I hold in my hand the 1939 issue of that maga- 
zine. I would like to ask that the masthead and table of contents 
be inserted in the record at this point. 

The masthead indicates the editorial board consists of T. A. Bisson, 
Philip J. Jaffe, Maxwell S. Stewart, and Robert Norton; that the 
managing editor was Max Granich ; the business manatrer Dorothea 
Tooker; contributing editors Theodore Draper, Miss Haru Matsui, 
Michael Eothman, Harold "Ward, Gen. Victor A. Yakhontoff. 

The table of contents shows articles by Ting Ling, T. A. Bisson, 
Ma Hai-teh, James Bertram, Julius Loeb, E. Gay Talbott, Dr. M. S. 
Bates and Esther Carroll, in addition to the features which are also 
shown in that table of contents. May that be admitted i 

The Chairman. Who is the editor^ 

Mr. SouRWiNE. The editor was Max Granich. 

The Chairman. What is the tie-in^ 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore was questioned this morning with 
regard to his knowledge of this publication, and a letter was in- 
serted, his declination to serve on the editorial board. 

The Chairman, All right. 

(Material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 482,"' and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 482 

CHINA TODAY 

Editorial board : T. A. Bisson, Philip J. Jaffe, Maxwell S. Stewart, Robert 

Norton 
JNIanaging editor : jNIax Granich 
Business manager : Dorothea Tooker 
Contributing editors : 

Theodore Draper 

Miss Haru Matsui 

Michael Rothman 

Harold AVard 

Gen. Victor A. Yakhontoff 

Julius Loeb, cartographer 

Vol. 5. No. 5 — February 1939 

With the Editors 2 

Our Chilflren, by Ting Ling 4 

China Greets tlie New Year, by T. A. Bisson 5 

Where Nippon Sits On a Volcano, by Ma Hai-teh 7 

May I»ay In Tokyo, by James Bertram 8 

Two Fathers of Their Countries, bv Julius Loeb 10 

What Will Congress Do? bv E. Guv Talbott 12 

Poison F r Profit, by Dr. M. S. Bates - 13 

Flashes From China, edited by Grace Granich 16 

Slipping Past Japan's Censor, edited bv Manville Rodgers 17 

Books. Films 1 18 

America in Action, by Esther Carroll 19 

Published monthly at 168 West Twenty-third Street, New York, N. Y., by 
American Friends of the Chinese People. Single copy 10 cents. Yearly subscrip- 
tion .$1. For foreign countries except Canada add 50 cents. Entered as second 
class matter, October 24, 1934, at the Post Office at New York, N. Y., under the 
act of March 3, 1879. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I would like to ask one question which would be 
irrelevant elsewhere, and may even be irrelevant here. 
Do you know the author Ting Ling, Mr. Lattimore ? 
ISIr. Lattimore. I met him in Yenan, in 1937. 
Mr. Sourwine. Ting Ling is a pseudonym? 
Mr. Lattimore. It is a pseudonym, yes. 



3170 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Wliat is the name of the author that writes under 
that pseudonym ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know it at the time you met her? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't think I did. I don't think I ever knew 
it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Morris. I have two more things on this same issue, Senator. 

This is in connection with the book we referred to From Canton 
to Shanghai, published by Agis Verlag. On page 53 of this book 
appears a statement in German, and reference is made to "the Com- 
munist Party, the sole leader of the national and social revolution." 

Mr. Fortas, you may want to amplify, you may want to select 
other excerpts from the book to go into the record. But we would 
like to have this, together with what you want to add, inserted into 
the record by way of characterizing that particular book. 

The Chairman. What is the connection ? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, in connection with Asiaticus, the Asi- 
aticus article we referred to, there is an item here giving a short 
sketch of the author Asiaticus. This is at a time when Mr. Latti- 
more was the editor of the publication. 

It mentions in here that he is the author of this particular book, 
which we have questioned Mr. Lattimore about, and this is an excerpt 
from that book which indicates that the writer believed that the Com- 
munist Party is the leader of the national and social revolution. 

The Chairman. Do you want to insert this into the record ? 

Senator Ferguson. That is the book that Mr. Lattimore never heard 
about. 

Mr. Morris. According to his testimony. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. And it is in here as a note. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 

(The note referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 483" and was read 
in full by counsel.) 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That is the question I intended to ask, whether Mr. 
Lattimore ever read this book either in the German original or in the 
Japanese translation. 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I never. 

Mr. Morris. The articles by Asiaticus in Imprecorr have already 
been introduced in the record. May they be referred to in the record ? 

The Chairman. They may be referred. 

(See pp. 47-50, pt. 1, for reference to Imprecorr.) 

We shall recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 2 p. m. the same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

You may proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Fortas. I have read this transcript and I have marked in the 
portions that I should like to have be inserted in the record and which 
I think are necessary in order to set the other excerpt in its correct 
context. 

Mr. Morris. That will be done, Mr. Fortas. 

(See exhibit No. 480A, p. 3161.) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3171 



Mr. SouRwiNE, I wonder if I might make a short statement at this 
time. Might the record show that the document which was offered 
this morning was offered particularly as a document which had been 
accepted in the executive record, and the reason for the shortness of 
the excerpt was that we were attempting only to establish that fact, 
and then consideration be given to the consideration of counsel with 
regard to the addition of the other matter. 

The Chairman. Very well. You may proceed, Mr. Sourwine, or 
whoever is going to proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back to a point that 
was made this morning. TVe were discussing the minutes of April 
8, 1936. I think I would like 

The Chairman. Taken where ? 

Mr. Morris. Minutes of a meeting in Moscow, at which were present 
several Soviet officials and representatives of the American IPR and 
the Pacific Council of the IPR. We had a lengthy discussion on it. 
I think inasmuch as the subject treated in the April 12 minutes is 
very much the same, I would like that introduced into the record at 
this time instead of later on as we had planned, Senator. 

The Chairman. Very well, you may bring it forward. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this document? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a document from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations, headed, "Meeting, April 12, Motiliev, 
Voitinsky, ECC, O. L., H. M., Harondar." 

Mr. Morris. And what is that, Mr. Mandel? What is that docu- 
ment ? 

Mr. Mandel. That is a document from the files of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations. 

The Chairman. It is a photostat of a document. 

Mr. Mandel. Photostat of a document. 

The Chairman. Of a document found in the files of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, can you recall attending a meeting in 
Moscow on April 12, 1936, at which the people named in that docu- 
ment were present ? 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN LATTIMORE— Resumed 

Mr. Lattdiore. I don't recall it, but I assume that there was such 
a meeting and that I was there. 

The Chairman. In the initials in there that were read, the "O. L." 
#was you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That would be myself. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give Mr. Lattimore one of these stenciled 
copies so we can make reference to the same document and it will be 
a lot clearer. 

The Chairman. That is a stencil 

Mr. Morris. That is a stencil of that document and I think we can 
make the same references. 

I would like to call your attention to page 2, and would you go 
down to the eleventh line, the sentence beginning "O. L." in the 
eleventh line. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I read through the document as a whole first? 

Mr. Morris. It will take quite some time. It is a long article, Mr. 



3172 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Chairiuaii. I would like to direct the witness' attention to that one 
particular parairraph first, and then we can discuss the whole thinij. 

The CiiAiRMAX. 1 don't see any reason why he can't testify as to 
that and then read it through. 

Mr. MoRuis. flust read that one paragraph, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. LATTi^rorjo. Beginning "O. L."? 

Mr. ]\I()iuas. Beginning with "'O. L." in the eleventh line. 

Mr. Lattim(m?e. Yes. [Reading:] 

0. L. said that that wouUl nuike it possible to have two Soviet articles in one 
issue. 

Mr. MoKUTs. May that go iuto the record now, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Fercjuson. The document^ 

Mr. Morris. The document. 

The Chairman. Yes. It is authenticated. You mean the photo- 
static copy. 

Senator Ferguson. I think this record ought to show that the di- 
rector of research, when he })ut these articles in, has been sworn, 
and they are really going in imder that auspices. 

The Chairman. Mr. Mandel has been sworn. 

Senator Ferguson. That is what I mean, but I think the record 
ought to show that. 

The Chairman. It may show it again, of course, by all means. Did 
you want him sworn again? 

Senator Ferguson. No. I think when an exhibit goes in like this 
the record ought to show. 

The Chairman. That it goes in under the auspices of the research 
director. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 485" and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 485 

Meeting : April 12, Motiliev, Voiti.xsky, E. C. C. O. L.. H. M., Haroxdar 

1. K. ('. C. explained that the discussions at the Round Tables at the conference 
wei'e not simply questions and answers by the representatives from the coun- 
tries whose ecoiioniy was lieing studied. The questions in the preliminary 
ajjenda attempt to anticipate all the subjects which may be brought up for 
di.scu.ssion. Moreover the round tables do not follow the agenda completely. The 
agenda is just used as a general guide. 

Motiliev asked how the members of the conference were divided between the 
round tables. K. C. (;;. said that each round table had members from each coun- 
try and from each profession, if possible. 

Voitinsky said that in Whyte's article there was a proposal that the confer- 
■ence should reach some conclusions and make some proposals, i. e. in respect to 
China's currency problem and .Tapan's problem of raw materials. These are 
economic questions, but they have great political importance. How will these 
proi)o.'<als 1)? worked out at the conference? E. C. C. said that the opinion ex- 
press(=d in that article was Whyte's personal opinion, and, while he was an in- 
fluential member of Chatham House, the article had not been seen by the Chatham 
Hou.se staff and did not represent an official opinion of Chatham House. How- 
ever, Whyte's proposal refl(>cted the general Chatham House interest in whether 
or not the liritish Government was serious about Iloare's suggestion in re raw 
materials. E. C. ('. said that he thought the government would end up perhaps 
by granting a loan to .lapan to help finance purchases of raw materials. E. C. C. 
said that all such proposals would be considered by the Pacific Council and the 
Research Committee before the conference and some tentative conclusions would 
be reached. These in turn would be modified by the results of the conference 
itself. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3173 

II. E. C. C. explained that the Soviet Council should have a representative at 
each of the committee meetings scheduled to be held before the conference -ouens. 

III. Vj. C. C. asked if the Soviet members of the Council would be willing to 
speak to small groups in various American cities. Motiliev said that this could 
probably be ai-ranged and it would be better to plan for this after the conference, 
rather than before. 

IV. O. L. said that he would like to meet the Soviet suggestions as far as pos- 
sible, in re having a more definite line expressed in PA. He has not been able 
to do this before, because he has not had close cooperation from the various Coun- 
cils. He said that if the Soviet group would start on such a line, he would be 
able to make the others cooperate more fully. Voitinsky said that the main 
trouble was that the articles in PA did not come out against the aggressor, and 
the aggressor was not analyzed from within, therefore there were no indications 
of tlie internal weakness of the aggressor. 

O. L. asked for an article on the structure of the Japanese Empire. This might 
bring out the point that continental aggression was not antithetical to maritime 
aggression, but the two supplemented each other. Voitinsky said that this would 
probably be possible. Hp also suggested that there should be an article on ag- 
gression against Outer Mongolia, as this was so important now. 

O. L. said that he had asked Uimanshtein for an article on Birobidjan. Voi- 
tinsky suggested an article on Japanese policy in Korea. This has already been 
done in Tikhii Okean. The same material could be used for another article for 
Pacific Affairs. O. L. said that this had been done in regard to the article on the 
Chinese Land Tax. A Chinese version of the article liad appeared, but this was 
revised to meet the needs of a non-Chinese audience. The material was the same, 
but differently organized. O. L. said that he would like about six articles a year 
from the Soviet Council. Voitinsky said tliat they w(>ul(l do one on Outer .Mon- 
golia to be ready for the next issue (to be mailed May 20) and then one oa 
Korea and one of the Japanese Empire. He said that he personally would like 
to write an article in reply to Whyte's article. O. L. said that that'would make 
it possible to have two Soviet articles in one issue. Voitinsky said that these 
articles would be done on the same basis of the materials which had already 
appeared in Tikhii Okean, but "would be polished lor expnrt.*' He said that the 
articles would have to he translated here. O. L. brought up the question of! 
editing the vocabulary in left and Soviet articles. In regard to the Asiaticus 
article he had to revise the vocabulary considerabh, or otherwise the article 
would have been discounted as propaganda. In the Kantorovitch article O. L. 
had edited out a number of thing.s, but tlie New York office had put them back 
in. Voitin.>"ky said that that would be impossible with their articles, because 
they cannot give in on their point of view. No such editorial changes could be 
made without their approval. He said that they understood the problem of PA 
and knew what sort of thing they would have to writv' for it. 

O. L. said that they wanted book reviews from the Soviet Council in every 
issue. There could be as many as three per issue. Voitinsky said that they 
could get the Webb book reviewed. Voitinsky said that it would" also be interest- 
ing to have Tikhii Okean reviewed in each issue. This would get across their 
point of view. 

V. E. C. C. explained about the Ten Year History of the IPR : Condliffe wn-iting 
the section on economic research ; Boeke on cultural and anthropological; Whyte 
on political. He wants the Soviet Council to read these sections and then write 
a further section on what the Soviet Council considered important in the IPR 
work and what future policy and work should be followed. Although the book 
concentrates mainly on the research work of the IPK, it will also treat the 
whole activity. 

VI. E. C. C. said that Holland was very plea.sed with the Soviet plan to make 
the studies of the cotton industry and of Standards of Living. He explained 
that the IPR did not try to make every council join every research project. The 
Soviet Council should just do those things which were important from their 
own point of view. 

O. L. mentioned that in the June issue thei-e would be a bibliographical article 
by Schiller. He would like to have such an article from the Soviet Council. 
Voitinsky thought that this could be done. 

^'II. E. C. C. said that Liu Yu-Wnii would like to know as soon as possible 
when INiotiliev would be in China, so he could make plans for him. 

VIII. ]\lotiliev said that he thought Romm would be named to represent them 
in New York on the staff before the conference. This could not be confirmed 
until Bucharin came back, but he thought this would be worked out. E. C. C. 



3174 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

explained that it would also be desirable to have a Soviet person on the inter- 
national staff in the period between conferences. He suggested someone like 
Rogov. 

IX. E. C. C said that he would like to have Harondar send him a list as soon 
as possible of the Soviet representatives on the international committees. He 
also wondered if after the discussions which have been held here, it would be 
possible to have a Soviet correspondent on PA again. 

X. E. C. C. explained about the International Studies Conference, its organiza- 
tion and its development. He said that the IPR is a member of the conference 
and in the past has had an observer at the conferences, usually someone from 
England. This year the conference is to be held in Madrid and will be the 
first of two conferences on the subject of collective security, etc. E. C. C. has 
the right to appoint anyone he wants to represent the IPR there. He will send 
the complete agenda, and the papers that are already prepared when he gets to 
Paris. He will also find out if any other Soviet organization is represented in 
the conference. If the Soviet IPR would like to send someone, he will arrange 
it. They might prefer to wait until next year, when the final conference on 
collective security will be held. Last year the Soviet ambassador in London at- 
tended the conference as an observer, but the general policy of the conference 
is not to have government oflicials attend as members. Motiliev said that this 
question would be considered by the committee, and he would notify E. C. C. 
of the decision. 

XL E. C. C. explained the controversy between himself and the Honolulu 
group. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, will you continue reading, please. 
Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Voitinsky said that these articles would be done on the same basis of the 
materials which had already appeared in Tikhii Okean, but "would be polished 
for export. He said that the articles would have to be translated here. O. L. 
brought up the question of editing the vocabulary in left and Soviet articles. 
In regard to the Asiaticus articles he had to revise the vocabulary considerably, 
or otherwise the article would have been discounted as propaganda. In the 
Kantorovitch article O. L. had edited out a number of things, but the New York 
ofl5ce had put them back in. Voitinsky said that that would be impossible with 
their articles, because they cannot give in on their point of view. No such 
editorial changes could be made without their approval. He said that they 
understood the problem of PA and knew what sort of thing they would have to 
write for it. 

The Chairman. What is meant by the term "their" as used in the 
context ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I assume that it means the Soviet Council of the 
IPR. 

In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show 
that this is clearly not a stenographic transcript, it is a memorandum 
written by somebody, not myself. This is the first time I have ever 
seen it, and I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any particular phrase. 

The Chairman. The meeting took place, is that right, Mr. Lat- 
timore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The meeting took place ; yes. 

The Chairman. And minutes were made of the meeting? 

Mr. Lattimore. Minutes were made of the meeting. I don't know 
who made the minutes. It doesn't seem to show here and they were 
not shown to me before. 

The Chairman. The parties named in the minutes which you have 
before you now, in the manuscript before you, were there to your 
knowledge ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sure they were there. In my present recol- 
lection I can't recall who was there. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3175 

Mr. Morris. Isn't it apparent from reading those minutes, Mr. 
Lattimore, that at that particular time it was apparent to you that 
Asiaticus articles had already been taken up by Pacific Affairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. Presumably I had had an article from Asiaticus, 
yes. 

Mr. Morris. Is not the article we were discussing this morning in 
the June 1936 edition of Pacific Affairs, the first article that Asiaticus 
ever wrote for Pacific Affairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes; I think it is. He may have sent something 
before that was not accepted and not printed. This is the first one 
that was printed. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You didn't edit Asiaticus' article between April 
8 and April 12 while you were in Moscow, did you ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember doing any editing in Moscow, 
no. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. So if you had had it and edited it by April 12, you 
had had it and edited it by April 8, isn't that correct? 

Mr. Lattimore. Presumably, yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, do you recall in connection with the 
Asiaticus article that you had to revise the vocabulary considerably 
or otherwise the article would have been discounted as propaganda? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Morris, I remember 

The Chairman. I think you had better answer that yes or no and 
then explain, Mr. Lattimore. That is susceptible of an answer 
jes or no, and you may explain afterward. 

Mr. Lattimore. I remember that I considered 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Lattimore. I tried to guide 
you in the proper course, and you don't seem to want to follow it. 

Mr. FoRTAS. May I have the question ? 

The Chairman. Read the question to the witness. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

The Chairman. That is susceptible of an answer yes or no, and 
then you may explain, if you have an explanation. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes; I remember clearly I considered that his 
writing was very strongly anti-British and I was willing to retain 
anything where his facts would support it but I edited out anything 
that I considered merely anti-British verbiage. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you 

The Chairman. Let's go back just a minute. To whose article 
were you referring in your last answer ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The article by Asiaticus. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Lattimore, as a matter of fact, did you not 
force through that Asiaticus article over the objections of certain 
British interests? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, Mr. Sourwine; I did not force it through. I 
followed the usual practice of sending an advance copy and asking 
ior objections, if any. I don't have the correspondence, but my strong 
recollection is that they objected to certain interpretations of the 
facts, but not to the facts themselves, and our procedure in such cases 
was not exclusively in the case of the British, but always to go ahead 
and publish the article. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify that document that I 
have just handed you. 



3176 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of an original letter from the files 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations on the letterhead of -Pacific 
Atfairs, dated December 13, 1937, addressed to Mr. Edward C. Carter, 
signed Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this letter intro- 
duced into the record. 

(The document referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 486'' and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 486 
Cable : Inparel, New York Telephone PLaza 3-4700 

PACIFIC AFFAIRS 

Published Quarterly by the Institute of Pacific Relations 

HONOLULU, HAWAII 
316 Dillingham BUlg. 

Office of the Editor, 129 East 52n(i Street, New York City 

13th December 1937. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

Institnte of Pacific Relations, 

Mechanics Institute Building, Post Street, 

San Francisco, California. 

Dear Carter : A boat left for San Francisco the day after we got in here, but 
I did not get off my intended letter to you on account of the rush of dealing with 
Pacific Affairs material, end of the year accounts, and so forth. Consequently 
I am getting this ready for the Clipper. 

Bill and I are much encouraged to find that in submitting our joint memo- 
randum to you we were actually converging on a line of development which you 
had already begun to mark out. I am looking forward to our early meeting in 
California, so as to get new arrangements under way as rapidly as possible. 

Evidently the December number of Pacific Affairs has had to be somewhat 
deferred owing to the slowness of the mails. I guess we were wise not to try to 
hold <^in longer in Peii)ing. If we had stayed, we might have t)een badly in arrears 
by the time the March numl)er was due. It appears now that I can go on from 
here to San Francisco and still be in time for final consideration of the March 
number. 

As you may know, there have been heartfelt promises from Saionji for a ma.1or 
.Japanese contribution for March. While in Tokyo I was impressed by Saionji's 
brains and forthrightness. Nevertheless, I dare not put more than the usual 
faith in an article promised from Tokyo. It is therefore comforting to have 
actually in hand a very good article which Bill secured from Uyeda on "pigmy" 
industries. Our Japanese Coimcil is probably having a pretty grim time. They 
said very politely that they would have liked to have me longer in Japan; but 
it was quite clear that while they were glad to see me for a moment and to 
get fresh and independent information about China, a longer stay might have 
been embarrassing to them. The morning after our arrival at Tokyo the break- 
fast newspaper contained an account of the dismissal of Yanaihara for "pacifist" 
opinions expressed long ago, these being held by the Home Office to be "dangerous 
to peace and good order. * * *" 

< >f the material awaiting me here the most interesting was the Hubbard article 
on the Soviet Five Year Plans, which Holland and I have read with, probably, 
curious expressions on our faces. While waiting for whatever reaction it may 
detonate in Motylev, I may as well review several considerations that are likely 
to turn out to be pertinent. 

In the first place, it is a calamity that in spite of our combined and persistent 
urging, the Soviet Council has never contributed adequately to Pacific Affairs. 
As a result, this very skillful attack threatens to make an impression on readers 
who have not had the prior advantage of reading constructive presentations of 
problems of major Soviet interest, by Soviet authors. 

In the second phtce, Motylev and his colleagues told you and me in Moscow 
that they did not object to adverse criticism, if expressed by people of leading 
reputation, or i)eople representing important bodies of opinion. Hubbard cannot 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3177 

lightly be refused a hearing. He has an important influence and standing 
among "people who count" in England ; otherwise he would not be retained as 
an expert by the Bank of England. 

In the third place, this article comes to us, though we did not our.selves request 
it, through Chatham House, one of the major organs of the IPR. As editor, 
I necessarily recall that I forced through an article by Asiaticus on British 
capitalist financial policy in China, against the protests of Chatham House. 
This would make it difficult for me to refuse the Hubbard article on the ground 
that it is impolitic. It is true that Asiaticus has no connection with our Soviet 
Council, but it is equally true that he is regarded by Chatham House as a repre- 
sentative Marxist spokesman. Chatham House, therefore, will undoubtedly 
consider that it has by precedent a claim to make stringent criticisms of Marxist 
policies and Soviet achievements. 

There are several points in Newton D. Baker's letter of proposals concerning 
the General Purposes Budget for 1988 on which I should like to consult you as 
early as possible. 

I am glad to see that an effort will be made to reduce the budget of Pacific 
Affairs. I wonder, however, whether the changes thus far proposed will prove 
])ractlcal. 

I notice that the estimated income of Pacific Affaiks has been raised from 
$4,800 to $5,100. This presumably would mean an increased circulation and 
therefore increased printing costs. Yet the estimate for "printing and cuts" 
has been cut from $4,400 to $3,800. 

It may prove possible to reduce the appropriation for travel, which has been 
put at $800 for 1938. Owing to our forced return from China, there has been 
a con.siderable excess in travel over the 1937 estimate of $700. It occurs to me, 
however, that you may have overlooked an item for $500 set aside for travel in 
the 1937 appropriation from the Research budget for my Inner Asian project. 
On consultation with Bill, it seems to us both that this $500 has not yet been 
touched ; if it were applied to the 1937 excess, it might prove possible to save 
on the 1938 appropriation. 

I notice that there was an item of $1,000 for promotion in 1937. which has been 
reduced to $400 for 1938. I should like very much to know what expenditures 
were charged against this fund in 1937, and what were the results. 

You must have had a terrific time of it riding the double crisis of adjustments 
within the IPR and application of the IPR's resources to the present crisis. We 
are looking forward eagerly to hearing from you something of the interesting 
consultations you must have had already, and plans for the present and future. 
Our problems always seem to come down to the fact that however difficult the 
present, the future is not cut off. 
Yours, 

Owen Lattimore /s/ 
Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr, Morris, can the letter be shown to jSIr. Latti- 
more and ask him if it is a letter which he wrote ? 

Mr. MoRKis. Mr. Lattimore, will you look at these letters and de- 
termine whether or not it is a letter written over your signature, photo- 
stat of a letter over your signatttre ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is clearly a letter over my signature ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like this introduced into the 
record with the question addressed to Mr. Lattimore this morning, "To 
your knowledge was Asiaticus considered a Marxist in IPR circles?" 

The Chairman. You may read it and insert it in the record. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, will you read the paragraph at the 
bottom of the stencil page beginning 'Tn the third place'' '? 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

In the third place, this article comes to us, though we did not ourselves request 
it, through Chatham House, one of the major organs of the IPR. As editor, 
I necessarily recall that I forced through an article by Asiaticus on British 
capitalist financial policy in China, against the protests of Chatham House. 
This would make it difficult for me to refuse the Hubbard article on the ground 
that it is impolitic. It is true that Asiaticus has no connection with our Soviet 
Council, but it is equally true that he is regarded by Chatham House as a 



3178 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

representative Marxist spokesman. Chatham House, therefore, will undoubtedly 
consider that it has by precedent a claim to make stringent criticisms of Marxist 
policies and Soviet achievements. 

Senator Ferguson. May I ask the question whether or not he was a 
Marxist. 

INIr. Lattimore. He was apparently a Marxist in the opinion of the 
Chatham House. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you disagree with that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I wouldn't as of 1937 have been qualified to agree 
or disagree. 

Senator Ferguson. IVliat do you say now ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think he probably was. 

Senator Ferguson. What made you change your mind ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think the identification of various things that h& 
has written as having been published by Communist publishing 
houses, and so forth, which I didn't know at that time. 

Senator Ferguson. Does not this document that you have here of 
the minutes of the meeting in Moscow indicate the same thing ? That 
was in what jesir ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is written at the end of 1937, and that docu- 
ment is in the middle of 1936. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. So prior to this, the minutes of a meeting 
indicated that he was a Communist or a Marxist, isn't that correct, 
and you were in the meeting ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think the minutes of the meeting indi- 
cates that he was a Marxist or a Communist. 

Senator Ferguson. Let's see the minutes. 

Senator CConor. While Senator Fero-uson is looking at that, may I 
ask one question which may clarify this 5 

The Chairman. He is in consultation with his counsel right now. 

Senator O'Conor. I am sorry. I did not mean to interrupt you. 

I wonder, Mr. Lattimore, in light of the text of this in which it is 
said "I necessarily recall that I forced through an article by Asiaticus 
on British capitalist," whether there is any further comment you de- 
sire to make in view of your previous answer that you had not so 
forced the article through. 

Mr. Lattimore. Oh, simply that by my recollection I didn't force 
through articles against the opinion of the British any more than I 
forced them through against anybody else, but I wouldn't dispute 
the phraseology, that in a casual letter to somebody I said I forced it 
through. It is a phrase you can use when you have overridden an; 
objection, I think. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you didn't mean that you had forced it 
through ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Wliat is that ? ' 

Senator Ferguson. You did not mean this at all ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is a question of the choice of words. Senator 
Ferguson. 

The Chairman. Maybe he didn't mean his answer to Mr. Sourwine. 

Senator Ferguson. I was wondering. 

Senator O'Conor. I was wondering which of the two. 

The CiL\iRMAN. Which of the two do you mean ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is simply the question of a use of words. My 
recollection is that I wouldn't have said that I forced it through. My 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3179 

recollection was that I said I had overridden the objection or some- 
thino; of that kind, but since I see that I did say that I forced it 
through, I accept it that I said I forced it through. But I think the 
difference between forcing it through and overriding an objection is 
not very significant. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, there wasn't any doubt about 
the article being very critical of the British. 

Mr. Lattemore. No doubt about its being very critical of the 
British. 

Senator Ferguson. And you would say the British strenuously ob- 
jected to it? 

Mr. Lattimore. Again a question of choice of words. 

Senator Ferguson. Wliat word do you want to use ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say, without having seen the original cor- 
respondence from the British, that my recollection is that they 
strongly objected. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, and that it would take something more 
than just a few words to have it put in over their objection, would it 
not? Doirt you think the word "forced" is the proper word in 
here ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Forced or overrode. I don't see any great differ- 
ence between the two. 

Senator Ferguson. Does this now refresh your memory on this as 
to what you did do in relation to this article ? 

Mr. Lattimore. This refreshes my memory that I overrode the 
British in spite of their objections, and if you like, forced it through. 

Senator Ferguson. Would it not also indicate to you that that is 
the article that you were mentioning when you were in Moscow, 
because of what you said here ? 

Mr. Fortas. What is this ? 

Senator Ferguson. In this 13th of December 1937 letter, the one 
he just read. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it must have been the same article, but that 
doesn't mean that I thought it was a Communist article. 

Senator Ferguson. All right, now we find that in Moscow you were 
talking about someone writmg as a Communist an article, and you 
now come to the point where you call this same writer a Marxist. 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't call him that. 

Senator Ferguson. Wait. But he is called a Marxist by those who 
want the article kept out. 

Mr. Morris. Or representative Marxist. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. Does that not indicate to you that it is the 
same man you were talking about in Moscow as a Communist ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. It does not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it because of your previous answers on this 
record that it does not refresh your memory ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, because I have such a clear memory that I had 
been trying to get a Chinese Communist article. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think that is just exactly what you 
did get, a Chinese Communist article, but you got it from a German ? 
Is that not exactly what you got ? 



3180 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



Mr. LA'rriMOKE. I got an article from an anti-British German whom 
I regarded at that time as a social-democrat. He is identified as 1 
recall in the contributors paragraph there in Pacific Affairs as a con- 
tributor to left-wing journals. May 1 complete that? 

Senator Ferguson, Yes, 

Mr. Laitimore. As of 1936 my knowledge of any differences be- 
tween left-wing social-democrats, how far social democrats are Marx- 
ist, the difference between social-democrats and Communists, and all 
the rest of it, was so vague that I Nvould be quite capable of loose 
phraseology. 

Senator 1^'erguson. Then, Mr. Lattimore, do you think it was fair, 
as an editor of a paper, to foist upon the public, particularly Amer- 
icans, an article by this person and under an editor that doesn't know 
the difference between a social-democrat, a Marxist, and a Commu- 
nist t Do you think you were fair then, doing that without under- 
standing these terms and who they were? 

Mr, Lattimore. I think I was not only fair, but that I was fairly 
representative of American editors at that time, 1936. 

Senator Ferguson. As you see it now, what do you think about your 
work ? 

Mr. Lattimore, As I see it now, I think I did a job of editing a 
magazine participated in by a number of nations necessarily dealing 
often with controversial topics in a manner of which I am not ashamed. 

Senator Ferguson, Why didn't you go into the proposition as to 
whether or not this man was a representative Marxist spokesman? 

Mr. Laitimorje. Because as of 1936 I didn't think it important. 

Senator Ferguson. You didn't think it made any difference wdiether 
he was a Marxist spokesman, a Communist, or a left-winger ; is that 
true ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think even in 1936 I would have made a distinc- 
tion between Communist Party members or Russian Communists and 
various kinds of European social democrats and so forth, but that 
is mei-ely my recollection. It is awfully hard for me to remember 
exactly what my attitude was on those subjects 18 years ago, or 16 
yeai's ago. 

Senator Ferguson, Mr. Lattimore, you allowed him to write other 
articles and put them in this magazine after the 13th of December 
19;')7, when your letter speaks of him as a Marxist, 

Mr, Lai'iimore, Oh, yes. 

Senator Ferguson, You allowed him to write more articles after 
that and i)ut them in your magazine, is that correct? 

Mr. LA'rnMcan:. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson, Then did you understand that he was writing 
as a left-winger, a Marxist, or a Communist ? 

Mr. La-itimore. T understood, as I remember describing him in the 
contributors' identification paragraph there, as a left-winger. 

Senator Ferguson, Did you ever describe him later as a left- 
wingei'? 

Mr, Lai'tiaiore, 1 don't remember. That could easily be checked 
from copies of Pacific Affairs, You see, after all, this is a British 
description of a man as a representative Marxist, 

Senator Ferguson, Do you not think they ought to know ? 

Mr. LA'niMojjE, I don't see why 1 should have accepted them as 
authoritative on that subject, no. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3181 

Senator Ferguson. But you said you had trouble recognizing. 
Don't you think you might have taken the advice of some experts, 
the British, on Marxists ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I didn't think that the particular British that were 
writing to me on the subject were any more experts on the subject 
than I was. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you consider you were an expert? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I didn't. The whole point in my mind at the 
time was that the man had an anti-British attitude, and the question 
was one of tlie propriety with which he stated his anti-British point 
of view. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you agree, Mr. Lattimore, that the effect 
upon the public whether this was permitted by stupidity or intention 
would be the same as far as this magazine was concerned ? 

Mr. Lattimore. What impression? 

Senator Ferguson. Of these Comununist writings. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think it is Communist writings. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. You did not think that article was the writing of 
a Communist? 

Mr. Laittimore. No, I didn't. 

Senator Ferguson. Even today you do not think so ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Today I would say that my opinion is that the 
man was probably a Communist. I do not think the articles were 
Communist and I do not think the articles further Communist propa- 
ganda. 

Senator Ferguson. You do not think so? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't, not even to this day. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that because you do not recognize Communist 
propaganda ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, because as of the general standard of publish- 
ing and discussion in 1936-37, I wouldn't consider it Communist 
propaganda. 

Senator Ferguson. I am talking about today. You have read the 
article. You know what you think of it today. You read part of it 
here this morning. 

Mr. Lattimore. My opinion of it today is that in 1936-37 it was not 
Communist propaganda. 

Senator O'Conor. Could you let me ask one question there. Mr. 
Lattimore, when did you come to the realization that Asiaticus was 
a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know that "realization" is the exact word. 

Senator O'Conor. When were you convinced ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The proceedings of this committee have shown that 
he published books with Communist publishing houses, and there is 
a phrase there, something about the great Communist Party this, and 
that, and so forth. On that I would accept that he was a Communist. 

Senator O'Conor. Are we to understand that until the formation of 
this committee you were not sure or were not convinced that Asiaticus 
was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, that would be the correct way to put it. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record 
the Asiaticus article that appears in Pacific Affairs, June 1938. It 
runs from page 237 through 252. May that be made part of the 

88348 — 52— pt. 9 19 



3182 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

record ? Mr. Lattimore has a copy of that article, I am sure. It is an 
exchange between Edgar Snow and Asiaticus. 

Mr. Lattimore. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. The nature of the article having come into the dis- 
cussion, I think it is proper to put it in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 487" and is as 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 487 

[Soure: Pacific Affairs, Vol. XI, No. II, June 1938] 

"Asiaticus" Criticizes "Red Stab Over China" 

In view of the extraordinary interest aroused in all countries by Edgar 
Snow's Red Star Over China, we print herewith some correspondence 
which gives "Asiaticus" criticism of Snow's study of the Chinese Com- 
munists, together with a letter from Mr. Snow himself. We have con- 
siderably condensed all three letters, owing to necessities of space, but 
trust that in doing so we have not done injustice either to ''Asiaticus" 
or to Mr. Snow. — Editor. 

To the Editor of Pacific Affairs : 

Sir : Edgar Snow, the first foreign writer to enter Chinese Red territory, has 
done in Red Star Over China an excellent and well-documented piece of reporting. 
His book is a unique historical contribution. However, even nonpartisanship and 
honest investigation do not necessarily prevent errors of outlook and interpreta- 
tion in presenting facts personally seen and truthfully related. When Snow 
leaves actual reporting and turns to theory, he makes many esssential mistakes 
about the Chinese Communist movement, the historical position of Soviet China 
and the Red Army, the Soviet Union and Communism in general. 

His fundamental conception is plain : a revolution led by Communists, like that 
of Soviet China, must necessarily be a proletarian revolution with immediate 
Socialist aims. He found little that could properly be called Socialism in the 
Chinese Soviet region, in spite of his emphasis on the enormous revolutionary 
changes in the Chinese Soviet region. He tends to explain this by saying that 
the agrarian revolution, without actual Socialist changes, gave the Reds an 
"immediate basis of support"; they could not, while confined in the remote 
interior, " 'try out Communism in China,' which is what some people think the 
Reds have been attempting in their little blockaded areas" (p. 212). Obviously, 
the inference is that the Reds would "try out communism" if they could gain 
control of the great cities. 

This is certainly wrong. The policy of the Chinese Communists makes it quite 
unmistakable that their only immediate aim was to carry through that Chinese 
revolution which was actually going on ; which was not a Socialist but a nationalist 
revolution, against imperialist domination, combined with a bourgeois-democratic 
revolution aimed at eradicating the powerful feudal remnants in rural China and 
getting rid of the patriarchal, absolutist reactionaries. The political organization 
of the Chinese Communists (Red Army and Soviets, under Communist leader- 
ship) was never intended for any other purpose. The only difference between 
cooperation with the Kuomintang now and in the former period (1926-27) is that 
there are now Soviet areas in which this movement has been under the majority 
control of workers and peasants ever since the Kuomintang, going against Sun 
Yat-sen's teachings, compromised with imperialism and feudal reaction in 1927. 
The institution of Soviets (meaning Councils) does not imply that China is at- 
tempting what Russia accomplished in 1917 ; it is more like the Russian bourgeois- 
democratic revolution of 1905, led by proletarians, which saw the first historical 
appearance of Soviets. 

Nevertheless, Chinese Communism is a model child of Marx. Engels once said 
that Marxism is essentially the doctrine of the conditions necessary for the 
victory of the workers. The appearance in history of centralized, independent 
national states, with democratic constitutions, is one of those conditions, and so 
is the liberation of tbe peasants from feudal chains. Long before the epoch of 
Socialist revolution, beginning in 1917, the struggle against feudal absolutism and 
for democratic liberties and national defense against aggressors was part of the 
"minimum program" of the Socialist or Communist movement, an essential step 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3183 

toward the "maximum program" of proletarian revolution and a Socialist econ- 
omy. Therefore the Chinese Communists, in throwing everything into a struggle 
for national, bourgeois-democratic revolution, are not betraying the Socialist 
revolution but preparing the way for it in the future — although it may be a long 
way from Chinese victory against Japan and over the reactionaries in China to a 
Socialist revolution. 

Snow interprets Chinese Communism as an attempt at Socialist revolution when 
he argues (p. 441) that "the assistance expected from the world proletariat failed 
to materialize," and that "in the Communist International Program it is clearly 
recognized that successful proletarian movements in semicolonial countries such 
as China 'will be possible only if direct support is obtained from the countries in 
which the proletarian dictatorship is established' (i. e., in the U. S. S. R.)." As a 
matter of fact China is justified in expecting help not only from the world pro- 
letariat but from all progressive forces which support democracy, peace, and 
resistance to aggression ; and not only from the U. S. S. R. but from all democratic 
and peace-loving peoples — not necessarily through intervention, but through in- 
ternational collaboration to prevent imperialist intervention. 

It is a mistake to suggest, as Snow does (p. 212), that the Chinese Communists 
used land redistribution merely as a maneuver to gain the power that would 
enable them to press forward to thoroughgoing Socialist changes, including col- 
lectivization. The liberation of the Chinese peasantry was an aim in itself, 
because the peasantry will follow any political party that is ready to fight for 
the relief of peasant misery. Imperialist conquerors and their reactionary 
Chinese agents are the worst enemies of peasant liberation. It is quite different 
with great numbers of the smaller Chinese bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia ; 
and so long as they are willing to abolish feudal exaction and tax extortion as 
part of their program for national salvation and democratic reform, the peasants 
will not hesitate to follow them. Snow believes that the Kuomintang would not 
"sign its own death-warrant" (p. 445) by genuinely realizing bourgeois democ- 
racy ; but the Chinese nation can only survive through unification and immense 
sacrifices on the part of all classes, espeically the peasantry, and therefore if 
the Kuomintang, as the party of the bourgeoisie, were to prevent the sweeping 
reforms that are necessary if China is to survive, it really would be signing its own 
death-warrant. In a time of general sacrifice, the ruling party can only retain 
leadership if it considers the interests of those whom it calls on to follow it. 
Snow himself makes it clear (p. 445) that "some recognition of the demands of 
the majority will have to be made by the tiny minority v.hich now monopolizes 
the State economy and policing power." 

But no "tiny minority" can enforce its will over the majority in China, in 
present circumstances. The Japanese want nothing better than to cooperate with 
all internal enemies of progress and rejuvenation in China, and therefore those 
who lead the Chinese cannot afford to isolate themselves from the great majority 
of the nation. The Chinese Communists, as the party of the workers and poor 
peasants, have come to the fore not because they are under the delusion that 
the peasants can thus easily be made into fighters for Socialism, but because of 
their vital interest in a complete victory of national bourgeois-democratic revolu- 
tion, which must be established before the goal of Socialism can become an 
actual political issue. Even if the bourgeoisie were to surrender to imperialism, 
leaving the Communists in complete power in all of China that remained un- 
conquered, an immediate "thoroughgoing" Socialist revolution would not be a 
practical question, because such a Communist government would still consist 
only of the executives representing the majority of the Chinese people, in a 
struggle still focused on national independence and peasant liberation, even 
though the proletariat might have the hegemony Lu a union of workers, peasants, 
and the small bourgeoisie. 

What Snow evidently has in view is the Socialist revolution in the Soviet Union. 
In Russia, however, the proletariat was already in the vanguard. Not only had 
there already been successive stages of revolution, but there was a more mature 
base, nationally, socially and economically. The collectivization of rural economy 
in the Soviet Union came after a proletarian revolution, when the key economic 
positions had been in Socialist hands for more than a decade. The struggle for 
bourgeois-democratic revolution and national independence, which may yet take 
decades in China, was already over in the Soviet Union. Snow evidently realizes 
this but he seems to think the Chinese Communists may have a short-cut scheme 
and that "the victory of the revolution in China may hinge on the ability of the 
U. S. S. R. to make the transition from a program of Socialism in one country to 
Socialism in all countries, to world revolution" (p. 449). 



3184 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Disregarding Snow's evidently confused idea of the program of '"Socialism in 
one country" and his implication that somehow this hinders "Socialismi in all 
countries," or world revolution, it may be pointed out that even if the Soviet 
Union should change its mind and begin to promote "Socialism in all countries," 
beginning with China, the fact would still remain that Socialism cannot be con- 
structed in China until imperialist aggression has been defeated and the bour- 
geois-democratic revolution completed. Mars, in the preface to Capital, states 
that : 

One nation can learn from others, and should do so. When a society has dis- 
covered the natural laws which regulate its own movement, it can neither overleap 
the natural phases of evolution, nor shuffle them out of the world by decrees. 
But this much, at least, it can do : It can shorten and lessen the birth-pangs (In- 
ternational Publishers, N. Y., 1929, p. 864). 

The Soviet Union has always offered to China the opportunity, whenever China 
might be willing to take it, to make use of Soviet revolutionary experience for the 
national liberation of China. According to Snow, however : 

* * * the Soviet Union in fact did not extend to the Chinese comrades the 
promised "assistance and support of the proletarian dictatorship" in any degree 
commensurate with the need. On the contrary, the great help, amounting to 
intervention, which the Soviet Union gave to Chiang Kai-shek until 1927 had the 
objective influence of bringing into power the most reactionary elements of the 
Kuomintang. Of course, the rendering of direct aid to the Chinese Communists 
after 1927 became quite incompatible with the position adopted by the U. S. S. K. — 
and here is the well-known contradiction between the immediate needs of the 
national policy of the Soviet Union and the immediate demands of the world 
revolution — for to do so would have been to jeopardize by the danger of interna- 
tional war the whole program of Socialist construction in one country. Neverthe- 
less, it must be noted that the influence of this factor on the Chinese revolution 
was very great (p. 441). 

He goes on to describe the Chinese Communists, "deprived of an ally," continu- 
ing "to struggle alone for the 'hegemony of the bourgeois revolution.' " 

Presumably Snow uses "bourgeois revolution" in inverted commas because he 
cannot see that the Chinese revolution is bourgeois, and doubts whether the 
Chinese Communists see it that way. Probably his inference is that this is all 
"tactics," aimed at eventual Communist leadership of a Socialist revolution. This 
prevents him both from seeing the historical function of the Kuomintang when it 
was struggling against the old Peking Government, the warlord scourge and im- 
perialist intervention, and from seeing that the Communists joined the Kuomin- 
tang solely in order to advance this struggle — just as Marx and Engels supported 
the German bourgeois revolution of 1848. The Kuomintang's accession to power 
meant a historical advance for China, even though the Communists could not pre- 
vent the reactionary elements within the Kuomintang from taking advantage of- 
this. The Soviet Union was not responsible for this turn of events. Its advisors 
were not attached to Chiang Kai-shek merely personally, but to the National 
Government and the elected leadership of the Kuomintang and the Army. They 
supported the Kuomintang majority in advocating a centralized civilian govern- 
ment controlled by the Kuomintang, not by the Army. Chiang Kai-shek opposed 
the transfer of the National Government, to which Borodin was attached, from 
Canton to Wuhan ; his moves against this Government and the eventual surrender 
of the Kuomintang opposition, leading to abandonment of Sun Yat-sen's policy 
of cooperation with workers and peasants and the Communist Party, brought 
Soviet advisorship to the Kuomintang to an end. This advisorship, from 1923 to 
1927, had represented aid not merely to the Chinese Communists but to the 
Chinese national revolution. 

The Chinese Red Army began its existence with the military uprising at Nan- 
chang in 1927, with which communism, according to Snow, "first became an in- 
dependent force (p. 51). It had really been an independent force, however, from 
the moment the Communist Party of China was founded. It was prominent in 
cooperation with the Kuomintang until 1927 ; in the Shanghai general strike of 
1925 ; in the 1925-26 strike and boycott against Hongkong ; in the armed uprising, 
together with the Nationalist Army, against Chang Tsung-ohang's hordes before 
Shanghai in 1927. In the subsequent 10 years, just as much as in the present 
cooperation in the national war of resistance, the Chinese Communists have 
directed their activities mainly toward the national and bourgeois-democratic 
revolution ; and this does not in the least contradict their function as an inde- 
pendent class force aiming historically toward Socialist revolution. Marx and 
Engels began to make the working class conscious of its historical position and 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIOXS 3185 

mission by cooperating with all democratic forces, and taught it to rely on its 
own strength and not to follow the other classes blindly even in the course of this 
cooperation. Their teaching was : cooperation with the bourgeoisie when it works 
against feudalism and for democracy, and resistance to it when it compromises 
with reaction and betrays democracy. 

In compliance with these principles, the Chinese Communists regarded the 
Kuomintaug's abandonment of the revolutionary policies of Sun Yat-sen, in 1927, 
as a menace to the national and bourgeois-democratic revolution. They have 
struggled, ever since, to reinstate these policies throughout the nation. They 
believe (p. 77) that the decade since 1927 "has richly validated their thesis that 
national independence and democracy (which the Kuomintang also set as its 
ob.iective) cannot be achieved in China without an anti-imperialist policy exter- 
nally and an agrarian revolution internally." Surely this means that, while 
changing their tactics to suit different situations, they have continuously fought 
for the national and bourgeois-democratic revolution. 

Has the Communist International (of which the Chinese Communist Party is 
a member) failed to help Chinese Communists, and has assistance from the So- 
viet Union and the world proletariat "failed to materialize," as Snow suggests? 
He sees the reason for this "failure" in the "well-known contradiction between 
the immediate needs of the national policy of the Soviet Union and the imme- 
diate demands of the world revolution," thus making the Comintern "a kind 
of bureau of the Soviet Union" (pp. 478 and 441). Would Snow also say that 
the world proletariat is an institution of the Soviet Union? To him the Soviet 
Union under Stalin has been responsible for changing the Communist Inter- 
national by "transition from an organization of international incendiaries into 
an instrument of national policy of the Soviet Union" (p. 376). He speaks of 
the Comintern as having to "limp along as a kind of poor stepchild which might 
be officially disinherited whenever it did anything malaprop" (p. 479). This 
is a characterization of the Comintern which will be acclaimed by outright 
Fascists as well as by the Trotskyites. Snow's failure to see the working out 
of the historical process, however, has already been corrected by Mao Tse-tung, 
who in an interview with Snow (p. 167) declares that "the Communist Party 
of China was, is and will ever be, faithful to Marxist-Leninism." The truth 
is that the Chinese Communist Party, as an integral part of the Comintern, has 
learned the revolutionary theory and practice for which the Comintern stands. 
By fighting in the vanguard of the actual Chinese Revolution it has carried for- 
ward China's struggle for liberation from imperialism and aggression ; a cause 
in which national independence and the people's livelihood are combined; a 
cause which is not only China's but that of all workers, all over the world, and 
which has consistently been upheld by the Comintern. Therefore, the Chinese 
Communists today represent not only the workers and peasants of China, but 
the entire nation, in their fight for national liberation, and therefore they stand 
for democratic freedom as a whole. 

Though representing a i>artisan view, these remarks may perhaps be useful 
toward the establishment of a real understanding of the position and character 
of the present program of the Chinese Communist Party. 

"AsiATictrs." 

Shanghai, January 1938. 



Edgar Snow Replies 

To the Editor of Pacific Affairs. 

Sir : I appreciate the privilege of having seen an advance copy of the long 
remarks on my book, Red Star Over China, by "Asiaticus." My first reaction 
was sheer amazement that anyone could read my book and emerge from the 
task with impressions so directly antipodal to those which I hoped to convey. 
Unfortunately, "Asiaticus" approaches my book chiefly as theorist ; but it seems 
to me a not entirely scientific use of theory to develop his criticism, not on the 
basis of what I actually wrote but on his own theory of what I really meant to 
write. 

"Asiaticus" desired to prove that the Chinese Communists did not in the past, 
and do not now, propose to establish Socialism in China, but only bourgeois 
democracy. This is all right, for no doubt some people still believe that the 
Communists want to create Communism in China in the next five minutes (not 
that they wouldn't like to, at that, if it were possible). The thesis of the 
bourgeois-democratic revolution is not original with "Asiaticus" ; he assumes 



3186 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

that I have never heard of it, and do not accept it. The main burden of his 
•criticism is that what I really meant to say was that the Chinese Communists 
strive to seize power and immediately construct Socialism. Yet nowhere in my 
book do I take such a position. What does the book actually say? In the last 
•chapter, which is tlie only section dealing avowedly with theory, and that of 
necessity but briefly, I wrote : 

"A popular and never-dying notion of the Commimist movement in China is that 
it is anticapitalist in the sense that it does not see the necessity for a period of 
bourgeois or capitalist economy, but wants right away to proclaim Socialism. 
This is rubbish. Every pronouncement of the Communists has shown clearly 
that they i-ecognize the 'bourgeois character' of the present revolution. The 
struggle has been not over the nature of the revolution so much as over the nature 
of its leadership. The Communists recognize that the duties of that leadership 
are to realize, as quickly as possible, two primary historic tasks : first, to over- 
throw foreign imperialism and establish national independence (that is, liberate 
China from its semicolouial status) ; second, to overthrow the power of the land- 
lords and gentry and establish democracy" (that is, liberate the masses from 
■"semifeudalism" ) . 

Only after those tasks have been accomplished, the Communists foresee, will it 
be possible to move toward socialism. 

I5ut how can these victories be won? For a while the Communists hoped to win 
them with the bourgeoisie. But when the counter-revolution occurred in 1927, 
when the Kuomintang (the party of the landlords and bourgeoisie) abandoned 
the revolutionary method against both imperialism and "feudalism," they became 
convinced that "only a worker-peasant democratic dictatorship, under the hege- 
mony of the proletariat" could lead the bourgeois revolution — which in China 
did not assume a definitive form immediately after the overthrow of the imperial 
monarchy, but only at the time of the Great Revolution — 1925-27. 

The Communist saw that the Chinese capitalist class was not a true bourgeoisie, 
but a "colonial bourgeoisie." It was a "compradore class" with the character 
of an excrescence of the foreign and finance monopoly capitalism which it pri- 
marily served. It was too weak to lead the revolution. It could, in fact, achieve 
the conditions of its own freedom only through the fulfillment of the anti-imperi- 
alist movement, the elimination of foreign domination. But only the workers 
and peasants could lead such a revolution to its final victory. And the Com- 
munists intended that the workers and peasants should not turn over the fruits 
of that victory to the neo-capitalists whom they were thus to release, as had 
happened in France, Germany, Italy — everywhere in fact, except in Russia. 
Indeed, they should retain power throughout a kind of "N. E. P." period, a brief 
epoch of "controlled capitalism" and then a period of State capitalism, followed 
at last by a speedy transition into Socialist construction, with the help of the 
U. S. S. R. All this is indicated quite clearly in Fundamental Laws of the Chinese 
Soviet Republic. 

"The aim of the driving out of imperialism, and destroying the Kuomintang," 
repeated Mao Tse-tung in 1934, "is to unify China, to bring the bourgeois demo- 
cratic revolution to fruition, and to make it possible to turn this revolution into 
a higher stage of Socialist revolution. This is the task of the Soviet" (pp. 437- 
438). 

This is no doubt inadequate, but it seems to state very clearly that even had 
the Reds seized power they would have had no hope of instantly creating a 
Socialist Utopia. Yet evidently "Asiaticus" thinks that the book does not mean 
what it says here and elsewhere (the thesis is also explained on pp. 76-80), but 
that what I actually meant to say was that the Communists want "right away to 
proclaim Socialism" despite my description of such notions as "rubbish." 

In the above-quoted chapter I endeavored to explain how and why the Com- 
munists broke with the Kuomintang in 1927, the nature of the armed struggle 
for power in the next 10 years, and finally the basis on which the Communists 
engaged in a common struggle with the Kuomintang against Japan. The un- 
precedented intensification of the imperialist invasion was the main reason for 
the present reconciliation between the opposing class forces represented by the 
Communists and the Kuomintang, but the question of the hegemony of the revo- 
lution remains in abeyance, depending on the outcome of the war. 

"Asiaticus" does not seem to understand this question of hegemony of the 
revolution very clearly. He thinks that the Communists were fighting onlv for 
the bourgeois-democratic revolution, and that the Kuomintang fought for it 
too. If that were so it would be impossible to explain the past decade of civil 
war. Actually they were both fighting for that, but also for something more. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3187 

They fought also over the real issue of the hegemony of power, over whether 
the Chinese revolution was to be a "worker-peasant democratic dictatorship 
under the hegemony of the proletariat," or whether it was to resolve into a 
dictatorship under the hegemony of the Kuomintang. During their armed 
struggle for power (1927-1936) the Chinese Communists never conceded the 
role of leadership of the revolution to the Kuomintang — any more than the 
latter conceded it to the Communists. It was only after the submission of 
the Red Army last August to the high command of the Central Government — in 
which the hegemony was clearly not proletarian — that the Communists recog- 
nized the leadership of the bourgeoisie in the present stage (the struggle for 
national independence) of the still uncompleted revolution. 

It is therefore not quite correct to say, as "Asiaticus'" does, that in the past 
the "only immediate aim" of the Chinese Communists was the realization of 
the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Throughout the period of the Soviets 
and civil war the Communists' "immediate aims" were to complete the anti- 
imperialist, antifeudal, hourgeoise-democratic revolution, and also to complete 
it in the form of the worker-peasant democratic dictatorship under the hegemony 
of the proletariat. Or, as this was expressed in the Constitution of the Chinese 
Soviet Republic itself : 

"It shall be our task to finally establish this dictatorship throughout China. It 
shall be the aim of this dictatorship to destroy all feudal survivals, to annihi- 
late the might of the warlords in Cnina [among whom the Communists then 
clansified Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang armies — E. S.] to unite China, 
systematically, to limit the development of capitalism, to build up the economy 
of the state, to develop the class-consciousness and organization of the prole- 
tariat, to rally to its banner the broad masses of the village poor, in order to 
effect the transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat." [Italics mine — E.S.] 

"Asiaticus" trouble is that he ignores the significance of the new stage in 
the Chinese Revolution, and in the relations between the Kuomintang and 
the Communist Party, which began with the actual achievement of the United 
Front. But even though the present anti-impei'ialist struggle against Japan, 
which is manifestly revolutionary war, has been initiated by, and is still under 
the hegemony of the bourgeoisie, with the loyal cooperation of the Communists 
it is a grave error in dialectical thinking to imply from this that the Commu- 
nists would not be prepared, if conditions imposed the task upon them, to 
accept the full hegomony of the revolutionary war themselves. 

It is a mistake to assume that during the civil war the Communists were fight- 
ing for the bourgeois-democratic revolution for the bourgeoisie. On the contrary, 
they were from the beginning of the Soviet movement to its end fighting for pro- 
letarian hegemony of the revolution of the bourgeoisie, and for the ultimate 
("maximum program") realization of Connnunist society, and this remains today 
a goal which gives to the Marxist-Leninist proletarian leadership its invincible 
morale and revolutionary determination. "The Communist Party will never 
abandon its aims of Socialism and Communism," as Mao Tse-tung recently said : 

It will still pass through the stage of democratic revolution of the bourgeoisie 
to attain the stages of Socialism and Communism. The Communist Party retains 
its own program and its own policies. The party program is Socialism and Com- 
munism and this different from the San Min Chu I. Its policy program is more 
thorough compared with those of any other party and clique within this country, 
but it does not fundamentally contradict the program of the San Min Chu I. 

"Asiaticus' " error is that he does not distinguish between this role of hegemony 
and the nature of the next stage of the Chinese revolution itself. Chen Tu-hsiu 
suffered from some such view in 1927, when he advocated that the Communists 
submit to the Kuomintang and bourgeois hegemony of the revolution, and later 
on the Trotskyist emphasized the same view. They ignored the validity of the 
Chinese Soviets (which they regarded as peasant rebellion merely) l)ecause 
they denied the possibility of the proletarian role of hegemony in such a worker- 
peasant movement, and its ability to realize the tasks of bourgeois-democratic 
revolution. "Asiaticus" evidently does not take that position, because he ap- 
proves of the Soviets as progressive, but his inadequate conception of the Com- 
munists' aim for hegemony of power leaves unexplained one deep side of the 
nature and intensity of revolutionary straggle in China during the pre-United 
Front epoch. 

As concerns the remainder of "Asiaticus' " review, which attempts to interpret 
the historic relationship between the Comintern, the Soviet Union, and the 
Chinese Communist Party, it must be apparent that this poses very great ques- 
tions, which are changing in their nature each day. It is introduced by "Asiati- 



3188 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

cus" in such a manner as to require lengthy discussion, or none at all, and I feel I 
have already more than exhausted the courtesy of your space. It does not seem 
to me, however, that "Asiaticus" correctly represents my attitude toward the 
Comintern and the Soviet Union, which is objective, I hope, and somewhat 
critical, but not antagonistic nor unfriendly, as one might conclude from his 
review. 

Red Star would in any event have been a book far short of perfection, be- 
cause it was completed before the Sino-Japanese war broke out it is all the 
more subject to alteration. There are errors of fact in it, and doubtless errors 
of judgment and analysis, and some of these concern the Soviet Union ; but 
none of them represent a hardened prejudice. The views I have expressed 
are subject to revision. I do not claim to be a trained Marxist ; I am only an 
amateur at theory, and I am anxious to be corrected in this respect, as in 
others. But the charge that I believe the Chinese Communist movement "can 
only be one" with "immediate Socialist aims" would, if it were true, destroy 
any value my book might otherwise possess, and I am unable to let it go un- 
challenged. 

Edgar Snow. 

Shanghai, January 1938. 



"Asiaticus" Holds His Ground 

To the Editor of Pacific Affairs. 

Sir: I must congratulate Edgar Snow on admitting that his views do not 
represent a hardened prejudice. However, my criticism of his erroneous con- 
ceptions of the character of the Chinese Revolution are only confirmed by his 
reply. He quotes his own statement that the Chinese capitalist class was "not 
a true bourgeoisie," but a "colonial l)ourgeo'isie," and therefore was "too weak 
to lead the revolution." I cannot grasp how a bourgeoisie subjected to foreign 
or colonial domination ceases to be a true bourgeoisie. We know from history 
that even in independent countries like Germany, Tsarist Russia and Japan the 
bourgeoisie did not lead the bourgeois-democratic revolutions, but surrendered 
politically to feudal, absolutist forces, being satisfied with economic domination 
for itself. It might happen, however, that a "colonial bourgeoisie," if denied 
economic expansion and national independence, might be forced to lead the 
national bourgeois revolution in spite of its peculiar weakness in such a situa- 
tion. This weakness could only be overcome by arousing the masses of people 
to democratic action. This was the idea of Sun Yat-sen, who was both an anti- 
imperialist and a democratic leader. In justice to Sun Yat-sen it must be 
pointed out that, contrary to Snow's opinion, the theory of the Chinese bourgeois 
revolution being at the same time a revolution against imperialist domination 
was not only clarified and developed by the Communist Party but also pro- 
foundly realized and taught by Sun Yat-sen himself. It had a foremost place 
in his revolutionary policies and the San Min Chu I. 

Snow states that I make the mistake of assuming that the "Communists were 
fighting for the bourgeois-democratic revolution for the bourgeoisie." It is he 
who is utterly mistaken, not I. The bourgeois-democratic revolution is his- 
torically both for the bourgeoisie and for the expansion of the capitalist order ; 
just as the proletarian revolution is both for the proletariat and for Socialist 
transformation. He states in his book that the idea that the Communists were 
fighting for the bourgeois-democratic revolution for the bourgeoisie imputes 
"futility to the heroic sacrifices of thousands of lives in the struggle to assure 
the Socialist future of China." Here I can only refer him to the heroic sacri- 
fices during the bourgeois-revolutionary periods of the American War of In- 
dependence and the Civil War ; to the sacrifices made for the French Revolution 
and the sacrifices made by workers and peasants during the long-drawn-out 
period of bourgeois revolution in Russia, in 1905 and again in 1917. 

The split in the Chinese revolutionary United Front in 1927 occurred because 
the Kuomintang compromised with feudal forces and with imperialism, and 
turned against the democratic forces of the workers and peasants and the small 
bourgeoisie of the cities. In so doing it surrendered its former position of 
leadership in the national bourgeois revolution. It was the Communists who 
continued the fight. In so doing they took over the leadership of the revolu- 
tion, but the historical character of the revolution remained the same, and the 
Communists were not "fighting for that but also for something more." The 
workers and peasants were not fighting "for the bourgeoisie," but for their own 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3189 

national and democratic freedom, and the relief of their own misery. This is 
what gives the proletariat the interest to struggle to assure a Socialist future. 
However, their economic and political interests combine wih the bourgeois aim 
for economic and political domination, because this aim means the overthrowing 
of the combined forces of feudalism and of imperialist domination. It is char- 
acteristic of the period of bourgeois-democratic revolution that all democratic 
forces follow the leadership which actually exists and really leads the revolu- 
tion. The necessity for proletarian leadership, and the possibility of realizing it, 
arise only when the bourgeoisie does not lead the revolution, or actually oppose 
it, by submitting to feudal forces, or to feudal forces combined with or led by 
imperialist aggressors. Even so, proletarian leadership, or the hegemony of the 
proletariat among the democratic forces, does not mean opposing the existence 
of the bourgeoisie as a class, or preventing it from rejoining the revolutionary 
front. It is only a continuation of the revolution, which the bourgeoisie has be- 
trayed, in contradiction to its own class interests. It is only in a proletarian 
revolution aimed at overthrowing the bourgeoisie and realizing Socialism, that 
it is impossible to consider the interests of the bourgeois classi. 

In speaking of "immediate Socialist aims," I did not of course mean "spring- 
ing into Socialism right away." I simply defined the historical character and 
mission of a proletarian revolution. Snow states that the Chinese Communists, 
after attaining power, would have to go through an "N. E. P." period of con- 
trolled capitalism, leading first to state capitalism and then to a speedy transi- 
tion to Socialist construction, with the help of the U. S. S. R. This however 
does not mean retaining power, which is characteristic of proletarian hegemony 
in a bourgeois-democratic revolution. It applies to the position of the proletar- 
iat under a proletarian dictatorship, acquired by the victory of Socialist revolu- 
tion. The N. E. P. period in the Soviet Union, and that of controlled capitalism 
and state capitalism, were only possible after the victory of Socialist revolution. 
The Russian Communists, in aiming for this revolution, never concealed its char- 
acter or confused it with bourgeois-democratic revolution. On the contrary, they 
pointed out the fundamental difference in character and historical sequence of 
these two kinds of revolution. During the earlier bourgeois-revolutionary period 
they made heroic sacrifices for decades, following a clear and distinct revolu- 
tionary theory about the aims and possibilities open to the democratic forces 
within the frame of bourgeois revolution. The theory of the Chinese Communists 
is in no way diffei-ent. They have always aimed at the realization of the national 
bourgeois-democratic revolution, which is the only one within the scope of histori- 
cal realism in China today. It is true that their party program represents not 
only "something more," but very much more. The propaganda for their final aims 
will always express this aim, which is confined to the direct interests of the 
workers and poor peasantry and does not apply to the interests of the broad 
democratic front of a national bourgeois revolution. Any attempt, open or covert, 
to introduce the struggle for this "something more" during the fight for bour- 
geois national revolution would mean the isolation of the proletariat and the 
Communists from the national and democratic revolutionary front. This has 
been further emphasized by the new developments of which Snow speaks. The 
Chinese bourgeois revolution, aiming at unification, centralization and the na- 
tional independence of China, as well as at peasant liberation and democratic 
victory, means the revolutionary creation of a modern state. As such it is dis- 
tinctly different from the later i)eriod of struggle to realize Socialist revolution 
for China. 

In 1905 Lenin foresaw that, in the event of the overthrow of Tsarism by the 
bourgeois-democratic revolution, there would be a long period of democratic rule 
in Russia with a bourgeois-democratic republic, but under a government of work- 
ers and peasants. By 1917, however, the situation had become quite different. 
The Russian bourgeoisie had by then attained full economic domination, and to 
a great extent political power also, under the Tsarist regime, which took part in 
an imperialist aggressive war in the interests of the Russian bourgeoisie. The 
collapse of Tsarism was thus the beginning of a revolutionary crisis directed 
against both imperialist war and the rule of the bourgeoisie, and accordingly the 
belated achievement of peasant liberation offered direct support for the victory 
of Socialist revolution. 

The enormous difference between this and the present revolutionary issue in 
China is obvious. The main interests of the Chinese nation are still unification, 
centralization and national independence, which had been attained in Russia 
long before 1905, by which time the Russian bourgeois landlord regime was 
suppressing and exploiting other nationalities. Finally, there is in China the 



3190 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

revolutionary bourgeois party and a government created by revolution as well 
as a very broad mass of small bourgeoisie and intelligentsia, wbose aim is com- 
plete unification and centralization, and the national identity which is menaced 
by the imperialist aggressor. In Russia, the revolutionary organization of the 
workers had already become the only leadership in the bourgeois-democratic 
revolution against Tsarism. The main problem for Chinese Communists and 
their main tactical question ever since their existence as a party is, therefore, 
not competition for leadership but the duty of assuring, as the most conscious 
of the democratic forces, that the national bourgeois-democratic revolution shall 
actually proceed under conditions of the broadest possible cooperation and unity 
of all democratic forces. They must make full use of every possibility of 
achieving a free China, nationally organized as a democracy of the whole people. 
Then and only then can the issue of attaining "something more" — social freedom 
for the proletariat and the poor, led by a powerful working class in an indus- 
trialized China — become actual and urgent. There is no doubt that this will 
finally be attained, for the historical progress of the Chinese nation will not stop 
with the victory of national bourgeois revolution, but will only proceed more 
rapidly. 

Snow has called me a theorist and he speaks of himself as an amateur. Theory 
is nothing but knowledge of the essential facts and knowledge of how to apply 
them. To be an amateur is not an advantage but a handicap, especially for a 
writer who has done and is doing such valuable work as Edgar Snow in the 
cause of China's struggle for freedom. I hope he will overcome the handicap— 
the sooner the better. 

"ASIATICUS." 

Mr, ]\IoRRis. '\^nien did you first meet Frederick V. Field, Mr. 
Lattimore ? 

Mr, Latti3Iore, I think — I am sure it was in 1933 at the Banff 
conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations, 

Mr, Morris. Did you testify before the Tydings committee in 1950 
that while you were dealing- with Frederick V. Field you did not know 
him to be a Communist or that you had seen no evidence that he was 
a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. I presume I did. May I see the record on that? 

Mr. Morris, Yes; Tydings committee, page 816, Mr, Lattimore, 
will you read from page 816. I will give you a copy of the report of 
the Foreign Affairs Committee a year ago. Page 816, the last para- 
graph that is completed on the page, the last sentence reading — Do 
you have it, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Moreover, at that time I had seen no evidence attributing either Communist 
beliefs or support to Field. I am now told that he was then an active supporter 
and financial backer of Norman Thomas. 

Mr. Morris. Now will you read on page 817 the first full paragraph, 
beofinning "Budenz"? 

^Ir. Lattimore (reading) : 

Kudenz has publicly mentioned the names of only two alleged Communists 
who wrote for Pacific Affaii's under my editorship, James S. Allen and Frederick 
V. Field. These men wrote articles which were published 12 and 13 years ago. 
At the time that I accepted their articles, however, I had no reason whatever 
to believe either of them to be a Communist. 

Mr, Morris. The question, therefore, Mr. Lattimore, is. Did you 
testify before the Tydings committee in 1950 that while you were 
dealing with Frederick V. Field you did not know him to be a Com- 
munist or that you had seen no evidence that he was a Communist? 

Mr. Fortas. Mr. Chairman, there is a little confusion here. I be- 
lieve that this says "during this period." May we examine the tran- 
script to see what this period refers to? 

Mr. IMoRRis. Yes ; you have a copy there. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3191 

The Chairman. That is the proceedings before the Tydings com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. FoRTAS. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. I believe it is during your editorship of Pacific Affairs. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I think it is. 

The Chair3Ian. What is your question? 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify before the Tydings committee in 1950 
that while you were editor of Pacific Affairs you did not know Fred- 
erick V. Field to be a Communist or that you had seen no evidence 
that he was a Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. Did you testify before the Tydings committee that you 
never believed Field to have been a Communist or to have had vigor- 
ous Communist sympathies? Page 888 of the Tydings committee. 

Mr. FoRTAS. That is during the same period, Mr. Morris? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. That is a question addressed to you by Senator 
Hickenlooper, the middle of the page [reading] : 

During that association did you believe at any time, or were you reliably 
Informed by Mr. Field — I will put it specifically — by Mr. Field, on information, 
that Mr. Field was a Communist or had vigorous Communist sympathies? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. Quite the contrary. As far as I knew, Mr. Field 
was a man who had an interest in the economies of the Pacific region, and who 
was rather a liberal young man. My acquaintance with him, my discussion of 
political topics with him, was so casual that it was not even — not until the 
other day did I even learn that he had at one time been a supporter of Mr. 
Norman Thomas. At that time I didn't know it. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right, that is right. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, I wonder if you will identify this docu- 
ment ? 

Mr. Mandel. I have here a handwritten letter on the letterhead of 
the United States Lines, dated October 22, 1936, addressed to "Dear 
Fred," signed with a signature, an initial signature. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, I offer you a photostatic copy of that 
letter and ask you if you will identify that signature and that letter 
as yours. 

Mr. SotJRwiNE. Mr. Mandel, did that come from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations, that is, the document of which this is a 
photostat ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a document from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, this is mine. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read the first four paragraphs, Mr. Latti- 
more. We have here a stencil copy which may be easier to read. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, it would be. 

The Chairman. May I have the original, please. I just want to 
see it a minute. 

Mr. FoRTAs. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, will you read the first four paragraphs 
of that letter, please? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. [Reading:] 

Dear Feed: One of the first things I did after the tumult and the shouting 
was to read over the edited version of my Pacific Affairs editorial as a result of 
which I am now wagging this old gray head. 

Your editing of the sentence about the nonexpansive characteristics of the 
Soviet Union demonstrates that you are a perspicuous political economist but 
allows also the inference that I am the better editor. 



3192 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Considering the character of Pacific Affairs the character of most of its readers 
and also my limited attainments as a writer, I still think there is a good deal 
to be said for my original version, though not to the point of overriding your 
decision, if you think there are other arguments more valid than the following: 

You defined my sentence, if I remember the phrase, as "describing a character- 
istic rather than the causes of the characteristic." This was all I had attempted 
to do. As a reasonably intelligent observer, I can be expected to note a charac- 
teristic; but whereas you can define the causes of the characteristic with au- 
thority, I could not. Therefore phrases like "imperialistic expansion," and 
"forces which cause capitalistic nations to seek foreign outlets" read a little out 
of character over my signature. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read another paragraph, Mr. Lattimore? 
Mr. Lattimore. Yes. [Reading:] 

Granted the signature, I think the admittedly incomplete phrasing first used 
is more persuasive, I wrote the piece as a whole with the limited object in view 
of creating an impression (not a scientific definition), of Japan as a "menace," 
and I thought this could most effectively done — 

I suppose the word "be" is left out — 

by carefully avoiding the political-economic vocabulary, which is (again, over 
my signature) unnecessary for political economists and too accertive 

I suj^pose that means "assertive" — 

for the peural public. 

The Chairman. Is that "puerile public" ? 

Mr. Morris. Would you like to look at the original, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. For the general public ; "too assertive for the gen- 
eral public." 

Mr. Morris. For the general public ? 

Mr. Lattimore. For the general public; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, what did you mean when you said to 
Mr. Field, "Whereas you can define the causes of the characteristic 
with authority, I could not." 

Mr. Lattimore. I would have to see the article that was being dis- 
cussed before I could recall what I was writing about. 

Mr. Morris. That is all the answer you can give to that question? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Apparently, Mr. Lattimore, that was a letter in 
longhand ; was it not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. So it wasn't dictated and not read. It was 
written by you in longhand. 

Mr. Lattimore. Written by me in longhand. 

Mr. Morris. Willyou identify this document, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Can you identify the article I was writing about, 
Mr. Morris ? 

The Chairman. Wait just a minute. 

Mr. Morris. Will you insert it in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You asked for it. I will insert it in the record. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3193 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 488" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 488 

[Handwritten letter] 

UNITED STATES LINES 

On Boakd S. S. Washington 

22 Oct. '36. 

Deab Feed: One of the first things I did after the tumult and the shouting 
was to read over the edited version of my Pacific Affairs editorial, as a result 
of which I am now wagging this old grey head. 

Your editing of the sentence about the non-expansive characteristics of the 
Soviet Union demonstrates that you are a perspicuous political economist but 
allows also the inference that I am the better editor. 

Considering the character of Pacific Affairs, the character of most of its readers, 
and also my limited attainments as a writer, I stili think there is a good deal to 
be said for my original version, though not to the point of overriding your 
decision, if you think there are other arguments more valid than the following : 

You defined my sentence, if I remember the phrase, as "describing a charac- 
teristic rather than the causes of the characteristic." This was all I had at- 
tempted to do. As a reasonably intelligent observer, I can be expected to note 
a characteristic ; but whereas you can define the causes of the characteristic with 
authority, I could not. Therefore phrases like "imperialistic expansion", and 
"forces which cause capitalistic nations to seek foreign outlets" read a little out 
of character over my signature. 

Granted the signature, I think the admittedly incomplete phrasing first used 
is more persuasive, I wrote the piece as a whole with the limited object in view of 
creating an impression (not a scientific definition) of Japan as a "menace" and 
the Soviet Union as not a menace, and I thought this could most effectively be 
done by carefully avoiding the political-economic vocabulary, which is (again, 
over my signature) unnecessary for political economists and too assertive for the 
general public. 

However, you decide. In any case, there's is need to be urgent to what 
Catherine will tell you is a Little Brown Girl degree. She needn't get out the 
cold chisel and mutilate the plates or anything like that. 

One of the things I'm going to make an effort at is the stirring up of discus- 
sion and controversy that will carry over from number to number and so keep up 
a livelier interest in Pacific Affairs. I'm going to work on this in England, partly 
to make English subscribers realise that Pacific Affairs is not all American and 
partly to make American readers feel that it isn't just a case of foreigners con- 
tributing sedate articles which Americans contribute all the aggressive opinions. 
My article was intended to open things up, not to close the issue by a too definite 
and accurate defining of the mainsprings of action. For instance, I might with 
luck get Peter Fleming to write in saying that perhaps the Soviet Union isn't 
a menace in Outer Mongolia, but how about Sinkiang? Then we'd be off for 
a long gallop, because Fleming can draw an accusation that looks pretty good 
for readers of the Times: but he can't sustain it. Maybe he knows that, of 
course, and won't stick his neck out. 

I'm sorz-y our going away party wasn't a party at all. It was nice of you to 
turn up in Sholls ; but my God, I'd thought I was sending out invitations, and 
had been looking forward with vulgar enthusiasm to too many drinks too early 
in the day. A hell of a come-down it turned out to be. 

And now what do you think has happened? This damn-fool ship has all kinds 
of internal immigration restrictions, and I can't get near enough that high- 
flying but low-living secretary of mine to give her any work to do, and so have 
to communicate with you by manual labour in this beetle-spoon. At the same, 
apparently all her family use this captain, so she gets asked up to the bridge for 
cocktails while we limply plod the deck keeping track of our progeny. Maybe 
Carter can handle a situation like that, but Jesus, you know me. 



3194 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

This is a swell trip, though. Unbelievably flat seat. Practically no passen- 
gers. David is learning to swim in the pool, and demonstrates his Arizona tech- 
nique on the rookiugliorse in the playroom. I can find breezy places where my 
pipe doesn't start a rush for the lifeboats and read some of the books I've been 
toting around for months, and work on a review of Chi's book for Karl August's 
magazine. Have we been in America these last few months? They say so, but 
you know how these rumours get around. 

So long Fred, and don't forget about that magazine. I'm with you in my dim 
way, and if you'll really send along the dummy, I'd like to try to be of use even 
in the practical details. 
Yours, 

(Signed) Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. I was going to ask Mr. Lattimore what he knows 
about the article. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is October 22, 1936, and there is something 
lower down indicating that the article is already at the printers. 
Let's see, how did our articles run, October or December 1936. Which 
one I am not sure. 

Mr. Morris. You have Pacific Affairs for ^936 in front of you. 

Mr. Lattimore. This is 1938. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. This is the 1936 volume, Mr. Lattimore. There is 
an article in September by you, sir. 

Mr. Latttmore. The letter is written in October, apparently about 
an article that is still to be published. 

Mr. Morris. Let's have the 1937 Pacific Affairs. 

Mr. Lattimore. Let me see if it sounds as if it were the article en- 
titled "Land and Sea and the Destiny of Japan" in the December 
issue of Pacific Affairs, 1936. Page 586. I think it must be a refer- 
ence to this article. 

Mr. Morris. When you say "this article," Mr. Lattimore, you 
mean- 



Mr. Lattimore. "Land and Sea and the Destiny of Japan," Pacific 
Affairs, December 1936, which is an article about what I called the 
defensive position of Russia at that time in the Pacific and what I 
defined as the aggressive position of Japan. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Does that article contain a reference to the non- 
expansive characteristics of the Soviet Union? Do you find that? 
That would be the identifiable feature, would it not? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. May I read the paragraph. 

Mr. Morris. Yes ; please do. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think really to make sense I need to read two 
paragraphs, page 588 : 

While, therefore, the rise to continental power of the Soviet Union, not fore- 
seen at the time of the Washington treaties, has now changed the balance of 
power in Asia, it cannot be said that a "nationalistic rivalry" between the Soviet 
Union and Japan over colonial regions to be exploited is necessarily implied. 
The position of the Soviet Union — 

Remember, this is 1936 — 

is defensive while that of Japan is aggressive, and if the Asiatic expansion of 
Japan cannot be attributed either to "laws" of geographical proximity or to the 
"realistic" necessities of competing in expansion with the Soviet Union, then the 
motivating impulse must be looked for in Japan itself. In this connection a 
Canadian writer has recently pointed out that czarist Russia was expansionist 
in terms of both trade and political empire while the Soviet Union, because 
it changed the nature of its internal economy, is not. He then draws attention 
to the fact tliat for centuries Japan was not driven toward the mainland of 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3195 

Asia by any inevitable urge. The energy of expansion appeared when private 
capital in its western form invested in industry was introduced into Japan, 
creating a demand for external markets — 

This is quoting from the Canadian author — 

for the principal reason that the decision as to how the national income shall be 
spent or invested are made by men who see higher profits in foreign expansion 
than they do in internal reconstruction. 

There is a footnote to an article called Pacific Problems and the IPB, 
by F. K. Scott, Canadian Forum, Toronto, October 1936. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. That article as printed does not appear to contain 
the phrases which in your letter of October 22 to Mr. Frederick Field 
you indicated were objectionable to you, does it, to wit, the phrases 
"imperialist expansion" and "forces which cause capitalistic nations 
to seek foreign outlets" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would have to read through the whole article just 
to see if they are there. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I was going to ask you if you didn't know, as a 
matter of fact, that your objections prevailed and that they were again 
eliminated from the article. 

Mr. Lattimore. Maybe they were, but I didn't know it. 

Mr. Morris. You say it in your letter, do you not, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I think I say in the letter 

Mr. Morris. You say : 

Therefore, phrases like "imperialist expansion" and "forces which cause capi- 
talistic nations to seek foreign outlets" read a little out of character over my 
signature. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. Because I was not a political 
economist. 

Mr. Morris. Then can you answer, what did you mean when you 
said to Mr. Field in this letter, "whereas you can define the causes of 
the characteristic with authority, I could not" ^ 

Mr. Lattimore. I regarded Mr. Field at that time as primarily an 
economic expert on the Far East. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this second letter I gave 
you ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter in the 
files of the Institute of Pacific Relations dated October 3, 1939, ad- 
dressed to Owen Lattimore, typewritten signature Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, will you look at that document, photo- 
static copy of the document, and tell us whether or not you recall hav- 
ing received such a letter. Will you read that letter, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. I don't recall the letter at all, but it is obvi- 
ously one that was written to me and that I received. At least I pre- 
sume I received it. I will read from the mimeographed copy. 

Exhibit 489 

New York, October 3, 1939. 
Dear 0^VEN : I have read your piece called Third Alternative on the current 
policies of the Soviet Union and for once in my life I must admit to having a 
negative reaction to one of your manuscripts. I have the notion that you are 
straining arguments, that you are not i>erfectly sure of your ground, and that 
you are attempting to project your ideas into the future when no prophecies can 
now be put to paper, particularly in a journal like Pacific Affairs. 



3196 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

To criticize your manuscript in any detail will practically involve me in writ- 
ing an article myself, and this I am by no means prepared to do. I don't know 
enough of the answers to write the kind of careful and complete interpretation 
without which nothing at the moment should, I believe, be put on paper. Partial 
explanations are likely to be more misleading than enlightening. 

If I were to try and work out my own thoughts on Soviet policy I think I 
should start by attempting to compare the conditions of the present war, the 
second imperialist war, with those of the first imperialist war. 

Mr. Morris. Excuse me, Mr. Lattimore. That is October 3, 1939, 
just 1 month after the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, is that right? 
Mr. Lattimore. I accept that. 

I should first say that both wars were similar in that they were imperialist 
wars, in the Marxist sense of the word. I should immediately add, however, that 
they contained an essential difference, the difference being the concrete existence 
of the Soviet Union with 21 or 22 years of revolutionary experience now as con- 
trasted with its nonexistence during the first war. 

The next step would be, I believe, to recall the slogans of revolutionary groups 
during the first war ; namely, to transfer the imperialist war into a civil war or 
into a series of civil wars. This object came off only in czarist Russia during 
the last war, though pretty substantial attempts were made in a number of other 
countries. I judge that the slogan of the present war is exactly the same, but 
that again the concreted existence of the Soviet Union makes its application in 
the present war something quite different than in 1914-18. The problem today 
from a revolutionary point of view is the same as it was in 1914: The British 
must get rid of their Chamberlains, the Germans of their Hitlers, the French 
of their Daladiers. But this time the Soviet Union operates as a powerful and 
concrete force to aid in these civil war efforts- 

In attempting to carry out the civil-war slogan today the Soviet Union is, I 
believe, working along two hypotheses. The first, which in their minds is by 
all odds the most desirable but at the same time the most improbable, is an 
immediate cessation of hostilities, an immediate stopping of the imperialist 
war. It is, I think the revolutionary belief that the stopping of the war im- 
mediately would almost automatically mean the overthrow of the Chamber- 
lain, Daladier, and even Hitler groups, for no one of those rulers could go back 
to their people who have already been aroused. Even if the people of these 
countries did not immediately overthrow tJieir rulers as a result of a peace 
today, the class struggle in all the countries couceraed would have been so 
accentuated as to promise internal democratization as — 

Apparently that is a misprint — 

at a very early date. The second alternative hypotheses and a more likely one 
is that there can be no immediate peace and that this imperialist war will be 
fought out for some time. This will be unfortunate from the revolutionary 
point of view because workers will be fighting workers ; workers are the people 
who make the armies and who are slaughtered. The historical result, how- 
ever, will be the inevitable overthrow of ruling groups in all the belligerent 
countries. There is every probability that the civil-war slogan will succeed over 
a widespread area. 

It is an interesting commentary on Soviet policy during the first month of 
the war that Hitler apparently went into the war in order to secure Poland and 
in order to secure domination over the Balkans and the Baltic countries. Dur- 
ing the first 4 weeks he had apparently been preceded in every one of these pur- 
poses by the Soviet Union. It would also seem to me that the British and 
French went to war not in order to smash Hitlerism as an end in itself but to 
smash Hitlerism in order to form a strong European block which would even- 
tually attack communism. What a licking this idea has taken in the first 4 
weeks. 

I fear that I have written you a very long letter and that what I have said 
compares unfavorably with your own manuscript which I started out by de- 
nouncing. However, I feel that if we can keep our thoughts to the level of dis- 
cussion and letter writing for a few weeks there will emerge something suflS- 
ciently well thought out to warrant publication in Pacific Affairs. Please let me 
hear from you. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3197 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, when you received that letter did you 
consider that that was evidence that Mr. Fields had vigorous Com- 
munist sympathies? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember receiving the letter, and my recol- 
lection has been that I began to think that Mr. Field was a close 
fellow traveler of the Russians at the time of the American Peace 
Mobilization, which I think was 1941, wasn't it? But judging from 
this letter, my memory was in error by about 2 years. 

The Chairjian. This letter has not been admitted in evidence. Do 
you wish it to be ? 

Mr. Morris. Will you receive that into evidence, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. It may be received in evidence. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 489" and was 
read in full.) 

Mr. MoERis. You were editor of Pacific Affairs on October 3, 1939, 
were you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, did you testify before the Tydings com- 
mittee that you did not have a desk in the State Department ? 

Mr. Lattlmore. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Lauchlin Currie ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a close associate of Lauchlin Currie ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I would not say close. Mj work brought me 
into considerable contact with him for a very short period. 

Mr. Morris. Did you in fact have an office in the State Department 
Building with Lauchlin Currie? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had the use of one room of Mr. Currie's offices 
in that building. 

Mr. Morris. To what extent did you establish yourself in that 
office? 

Mr. Lattimore. To the best of my recollection, I was living in 
Baltimore, came over to Washington occasionally, had the use of that 
room and I suppose it would be one of the extensions of Mr. Currie's 
phone or a phone in his office. I don't believe I kept files there. 

Mr. Morris. How often did you use that office ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It is impossible for me to recall clearly now, but I 
shoidd say probably several days a week. 

Mr. Morris. For what period of time? 

Senator O'Conor. Several days a week, over what period of time? 

Mr. Lattimore. I got back from China about, I think, the beginning 
of March 1942 and went back to China in the late summer. Part of 
that time I was not much in Washington because when I first came 
back I had rather bad dysentery from living in Chungking, and later 
in the summer in the hot weather I had a recurrence of it. But I don't 
remember the exact period. 

The Chairman. That is the period during which you occupied the 
office in the State Department? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the period in which I used that office when 
I was in Washington, yes. 

The Chairman. Answer the question propounded to you. 

Senator O'Conor. It would be accurate to say you used it several 
times a week over a period of 4 or 5 or 6 months ? 

88348— 52— pt. 9 20 



3198 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Were you there regularly every day or nearly every 

day? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't think I was. I think it was usually 2 
or 3 times a week. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did j^ou make a practice of being there as regularly 
as your health would permit? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. I was supposed to be home partly on leave, but 
also the Generalissimo requested me to familiarize myself with the 
work of the various agencies in Washington that were concerned with 
aid to China. So when some question of aid to China was up, I was 
likely to be in Washington more consecutively, and there would be 
lulls when I spent most of my time at home. 

Mr. SourwijSte. You didn't, then, count this office in the State De- 
partment Building as one that you went to regularly, that you intended 
to go to as regularly as your health would permit ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I wouldn't consider that I went to that building on 
any regular schedule, no. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Nor stayed there any regular hours? 

Mr. Lattimore. Nor stayed there any regular hours. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, on whose recommendation were 
you proposed to the Generalissimo as an assistant ? 

Mr. Lattimore. President Roosevelt. 

Senator O 'Conor. And from whom did he receive the recommenda- 
tion, if you know? 

Mr. Lattimore. The only one I know was — let me think. I think 
I was asked to submit two names, and I submitted the names of Ad- 
miral Yarnell and President Isaiah Bowman, of Johns Hopkins. I 
believe President Bowman was the only one he consulted. 

Senator O 'Conor. You don't know who suggested your name to 
President Roosevelt ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I never knew that. As I said at the time of 
the Tydings hearing, I perhaps a little vainly simply took it for 
granted that if people were looking for somebody in the far-eastern 
field, my name would naturally be one of those considered. 

Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony, Mr. Lattimore, that you never 
told anybody that Lauchlin Currie had arranged for that appoint- 
ment? 

Mr. Lattimore. Arranged that appointment? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. It depends on how you mean arranged the appoint- 
ment. He arranged the appointment for me to see the President, but 
I don't believe he arranged to have me appointed as adviser. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever tell anybody that he had arranged to have 
you appointed as adviser? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't think so. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, do you recall testifying in executive 
session before this committee that your use of Currie's office was so 
irregular and so infrequent that it would be impossible to characterize 
it any other way, other tlian the way you have just described it. 

Mr. Lattimore. As irregular and infrequent? That is approxi- 
mately as I have described it just now, isn't it? 

JVIr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Mandel, will you identify this letter, please? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3199 



Mr. Mandel. It is a pliotostat- 



The Chairman. You haven't liad an answer to that last question. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; that is the way I testified. 

The Chairman. A1] right. 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a copy of a letter, the copy being 
from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations, dated June 12, 1942, 
addressed to "Dear Mr. Kizer," and the typewritten signature "Owen 
Lattimore." 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, will you look at that letter and see if 
you can recall having written it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I wrote this. 

Mr. Morris, Will you read the last paragraph, please. 

Mr. Lattimore. The last paragraph : 

My home address is as typed above, and my home telephone is Towson 846-W. 
I am in Washington about 4 days a weeli, and when there can always be reached 
at Lauchlin Currie's office, room 228, State Department Building; telephone 
National 1414, extension 90. 
Yours very sincerely, 

Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, did you testify in executive session that 
you never at any time at the request of Lauchlin Currie took care of 
his correspondence at the White House while he was away ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I may have. May I see it ? That would certainly 
be my recollection now. 

Mr. Morris. Page 26. 

Mr. Chairman, may this be received in the record. 

The Chairman. It may be received in the record, having been 
identified. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 490" and is as 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 490 

RuxTON, Md., June 12, 1942. 
Dear Mr. Kizer : Your letter of May 23, for a small but weight-carrying com- 
mittee to head up American interest in China, during the war and during the 
negotiation of peace, is one that interests me very much. I think your sugges- 
tion of Judge Schwellenbach to head the committee is positively brilliant. 

I hope that you will soon in fact be in Washington, as your letter half proph- 
esies. It would be easy to talk out such a project more quickly and thoroughly 
than it could be done by letter. 

My home address is as typed above, and my home telephone is Towson 846-W. 
I am in Washington about 4 days a week, and when there can always be reached 
at Lauchlin Currie's office, room 228, State Department Building ; telephone 
National 1414, extension 90. 
Yours very sincerely, 

Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore. That is what I stated, and that is my recollection 
now. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this letter, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a document from the files of 
the Institute of Pacific Kelations dated July 15, 1942, marked 
"W. W. L., and W. L. H., Strictly Confidential, The White House, 
Washington," addressed to Mr. Edward C. Carter, and the typewritten 
signature is Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. Will you look at that letter, Mr. Lattimore, and tell 
us whether you can recall having sent that letter ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I evidently sent it, but I don't recall it. 



3200 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. MoKRis. Will that be admitted into the record, Mr. Chairman? 
Tlie Chairman. It may be admitted into the record. 
Mr. Morris. Will yon read the first paragraph of that letter, please ? 
Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Dear Carter : Currie asked me to take care of his correspondence while he is 
away and in view of your telegram of today, I think I had better tell you that 
he has gone to China on a special trip. This news is absolutely confidential 
until released in the press. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 491," and is 
as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 491 

The White House, 
Washimjton, July 15, 19^2. 
Confidential. 

Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Dear Carter : Currie asked me to take care of his correspondence while he is 
away and in view of your telegram of today, I think I had better teU you that 
he has gone to China on a special trip. This news is absolutely confidential 
until released in the press. 

In view of the fact that all kinds of delay in travel are likely to occur, August 
22 and 28 would be a more likely date for him than August 15 and 16. The 
later date would also suit me better. 

As to a place for the meeting, I imagine that Princeton is the best, in spite of 
certain inconveniences. Considering the people you are going to have, if you 
held the meeting in either New York or Washington, too many of them will be 
interrupted all the time or hauled right out of the meeting. 

In your list of suggested attendants at the meeting, James Shoemaker would 
probably be a better representative of the Board of Economic Warfare than 
W. T. Stone. I knew that it is a bad thing to suggest too many people for a con- 
ference of this kind, but a name that might interest you is that of Gordon 
Bowles, who is now also with the Board of Economic Warfare. He has been 
with them so short a time that as far as representing the Board is concerned, 
he could not compare with Shoemaker. He would be valuable, however, for his 
knowledge of Japan, Korea, and parts of India. You have probably known 
him longer than I have, but just in case you should not know him, I might say 
briefly that he is the son of a very famous Quaker missionary in Tokyo and 
was partly educated in Japanese schools and in the Tokyo Imperial University 

Your tentative agenda seems to me quite adequate in general coverage and 
as specific as it can be made when we shall be discussing a very fluid situation 
which makes it difiicult to define in advance the most important subjects of 
discussion. One minor comment that occurs to me is that under Paragraph 8 
you mention individually the Philippines, Thailand, Korea, and India, but not 
Malaya, Netherlands India, or Indochina. 
Yours very sincerely, 

[s] Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. Did the top officials of the State Department 

Mr. Fortas. Excuse me just a moment, Mr. Morris. 

(Mr. Lattimore conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Morris, I should like to add to what I have 
just said that this refreshes my recollection and that I believe that 
Currie told his secretary to open his mail and to pass on to me any- 
thing that might be of concern to me. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, I am asking you if you can reconcile 
the statement you have just made with your testimony in executive 
session which reads as follows 

The Chairman. The page? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3201 

Mr. Morris. Page 26: 

Mr. MoKBis. Mr. Lattimore, isn't it a fact that when Currie went away for a 
period of time he would ask you to take care of his mail at the White House? 

Mr. Lattimoee. No. When I was back on leave from China in the summer of 
1942 Mr. Currie allowed me to use an outer office attached to his office. 

Mr. Morris. What do you mean allowed you to use it? 

Mr. Lattimore. He said there was an empty office there with a desk and a 
chair in it, and I was living in Ruxton and when I came over to Washington 
and had appointments to see people, and so forth, I used that as the place 
where I hung my hat. 

Mr. Morris. Tell me this, Mr. Lattimore. Is it your testimony that you did 
not at the request of Lauchlin Currie take care of his mail at the White House 
when he was away? 

Mr. Lattimore. That certainly is my statement. 

The Chairman. Again, will you please read that paragraph that 
you read in that letter ? Read it out loud. 
Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Currie asked me to take care of his correspondence while he is away and in 
view of your telegram of today, I think I had better tell you that he. has gone 
to China on a special trip. This news is absolutely confidential until released 
in the press. 

Obviously my memory was inaccurate. 

Mr. Morris. That is written on Wliite House stationery, is it Mr. 
Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, dictated to Lauchlin Currie's secretary. 

Mr. Morris. Are you acquainted with the testimony before this com- 
mittee that Lauchlin Currie aided an espionage ring in Washington 
during the war? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't remember seeing that. 

Mr. Morris. Did you read Miss Bentley's testimony to that effect? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I didn't. 

Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony you have not read all of the pub- 
lished hearings of this committee, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I haven't read all of them. 

Mr. Morris. Are you acquainted with the testimony before this 
committee that Lauchlin Currie had informed agents of an espionage 
ring that the United States was about to break the Soviet code ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't remember reading that. Oh, I think I 
have read that in the press, but I don't remember reading it in the 
transcript. 

Mr, Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this letter, please. 

Mr. IVLkNDEL. This is a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter from 
the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations, dated October 27, 1942, 
addressed to Joseph Barnes, typewritten signature Edward C. Carter. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, this is previous exhibit No. 103, and I 
would like to read it into the record in connection with the testimony 
of Mr. Lattimore at this time in connection with his association with 
Currie. 

The Chairmaist. In this hearing ? 

Mr. Morris. That is right, sir. Mr. Carter in this letter writes as 
follows : 

Dear Joe : Recently in Washington, Lauchlin Currie expressed to me the hope 
that some day soon when you are in Washington you would give him the 
privilege of a private talk. As you know, he is an intimate friend and admirer 
of Owen Lattimore and has himself made two visits to Chungking. You and he 



3202 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

would find a great deal in common, not only In matters Chinese, but in affairs 
elsewhere. I do hope that you can see him soon. 

His ofiice is in the State Department Building, but you reach him through the 
White House exchange. 

I read that in connection with Mr. Lattimore's answer on the extent 
to which he knew Mr. Lauchlin Currie. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 

(The document referred to was read in full and has previously been 
marked Exhibit No. 103.) 

Mr. INIoRRis. I believe Mr. Sourwine has a question. 

Senator Smith. May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr, Lattimore, this letter is written to Mr, Joseph Barnes, You 
knew Mr, Barnes, did you not ? 

Mr, Lattimore. Yes, I have known Mr, Barnes since 1934, 

Senator Smith. You and he were friends, were you not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. We were and are very good friends. 

Senator Smith, This may be entirely erroneous, but some suggestion 
was made that he was a kinsman of vours. Is he, or not ? 

The Chairman. Was a what ? 

Senator Smith. Kinsman, a cousin. I want to clear that up, either 
way. 

Mr, Lattimore. Yes? 

Senator Smith, Someone said, I believe, that your mother was a 
Barnes and this man was kin to you. Is there anything to that? 

Mr, Lattimore, I don't know whether there is anything to it or not. 

Senator Smith, At least we got that part cleared up. 

Senator O'Conor, Mr, Lattimore, during the period when you had 
the office of desk space in the White House Annex that you described, 
did you have access to confidential information ? 

Mr, Lattimore. I don't believe I did. 

The Chairman. State Department, as I understand it, 

Mr, Lattimore. State Department. No; I don't think I did, I 
might have if Currie showed me State Department material bearing 
on something that he was doing for the President in connection with 
aid to China, but my memory is absolutely unclear on that subject. 

Senator O'Conor, Did he show you such material? 

Mr, Lattimore, I have just said I may have, but I have no clear 
recollection at all on the subject. 

Senator O'Conor, You do refer to the information that you were 
sending to Mr, Carter as confidential. You kneAv that the nature of 
his trip was one which couldn't be made public, 

Mr, Lattimore. As I said in the letter there, I didn't want to take 
the responsibility of broadcasting it that he had gone on a trip until 
it was in the press. May I add the reason for that ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. The reason for that was, of course, a military se- 
curity reason because when people were going to China, flying in over 
the hump it was extremely dangerous. The flying itself was danger- 
ous enough, Japanese fighters were within range. It was consid- 
ered advisable to avoid any tip-offs that might set the Japanese watch- 
ing for chances to shoot down planes at a particular interval of time. 

Senator O'Conor, Did it come as any surprise to you in the more 
recent past that he was accused of having been in league with a Soviet 
espionage ring ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3203 

Mr. Lattimore. It came to me as a complete surprise, a shocking 
surprise. I don't believe it, I can't believe it. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Sourwine has a question. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore, if we might revert to the letter under 
date of October 3, written to you by Mr. Frederick V. Field, which 
referred to your piece called Third Alternative. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ? 

Mr. Sourwine. On the current policies of the Soviet Union. That 
would be the then current policies, wouldn't it, as of 1939 ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. SouR^VINE. Do you recall anything about that piece, "Third 
Alternative" ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't recall at all. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether it was ever published in 
Pacific Affaii^ ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't know. I might be able to look it up. 
Just a minute. I have a list here of my own contributions. 

I don't see it here ; no. I must say I don't remember writing such a 
piece. 

Mr. SouR"\viNE. Undoubtedly you had written something or Mr. 
Field wouldn't have been criticizing it, is that not true? 

Mr. Lattimore. Undoubtedly I did. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are not suggesting you didn't write the piece ? 
You are stating now that you simply don't remember writing it or 
what was in it ? 

]Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. You were editor of Pacific Affairs at this time? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Why was it that Mr. Field was telling you that 
if you and he kept your thoughts to the level of discussion and letter 
writing for a few weeks there will emerge something sufficiently well 
thought out to warrant publication in Pacific Affairs ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can only infer from that wording — I don't re- 
member the circumstances at all — that the question was putting in 
some kind of article in Pacific Affairs at the beginning of the war in 
Europe. 

Mr. Sourwine. I mean, sir, did Mr. Field have a veto power over 
what went into Pacific Affairs ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; he didn't. 

Mr. Sourwine. Why did you submit material to him before de- 
ciding whether it would go in Pacific Afl'airs ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Field was at that time secretary of the Amer- 
ican IPE. Since it was our general practice to circulate things that 
appeared in Pacific Affairs to various people for criticism and com- 
ment before publication, I, as editor, thou0;ht that I should receive 
the same treatment. So when I wrote an article I sent it in to the 
assistant editor in New York, and she was free to circulate it to all 
and sundry. 

Mr. Sourwine. You mean that this article was not sent by you to 



Mr. Field- 
Mr. Lattimore. I doubt it very much. 

Mr. Sourwine. I see. Would you say that Mr. Field had no re- 
sponsibility for the editorial content of Pacific Affairs and had no 
authority with regard to what went into the magazine ? 



3204 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say the answer to that would be different 
in different years. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Let's talk about this year, 1939. 

Mr. Lattimore. I would have to look it up, because at different 
times various people were listed as consultant-editors of Pacific Affairs 
representing the various national councils. Sometimes that would be 
for the American, and sometimes that would be the Secretary of the 
American council, and sometimes I believe it would be somebody else. 

]\Ir. SouRWiNE. This is the year in which you have testified Mr. 
Field was secretary of the American council ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; but I think we could settle that very quickly 
by looking at the masthead for 1939 and seeing who is listed, if any- 
body. In fact, I am not sure that all the time we edited Pacific Af- 
fairs we had that system. We may have started out with that system 
and then discarded it, and my memory is not clear on it. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Don't you think this letter indicates that Mr. Field 
both has and is exercising a certain measure of editorial authority? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir; I don't. I think Mr. Field is expressing 
his personal opinion. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Mr. Chairman, I have asked that a copy of Pacific 
Affairs for some month in 1939 be sent for, and when we get it I 
would like permission to revert and get an answer to that one ques- 
tion. Otherwise, that concludes my line of questioning on that point. 

Mr. Morris. May we have another letter introduced into the rec- 
ord, Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Mandel, will you identify that letter, please. 

Mr. Mandel. There is a photostatic copy of a handwritten letter 
on the letterhead of Pacific Affairs, addressed to Frederick V. Field 
and signed with the same initials with which the previous letter 
has been signed and identified by Mr. Lattimore. It is dated Sep- 
tember 27, 1935 sent from 33 Ta Y uan Fu Hu Tung, Peiping, and is 
taken from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Can it be handed to Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Morris. That is a photostat of the original ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; this is obviously mine. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may it be received in the record. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. When the witness said it is obviously mine, do you 
mean it is a letter which you wrote and in your handwriting? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, that is right. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that letter, Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. This is dated at Peiping, September 27, 1935. 

Dear Fred : After getting back here 

The Chairman. Who is referred to by "Dear Fred"? 

Mr. Lattimore. The letter is to F. V. Field, New York office. 

Exhibit 492 

Dear Fred : After getting back here I read your summary of the movements 
of the Communist armies in China, which I read with very great interest. 
I am sorry that I cannot offer very much in the way of comment you request. 
Particular comment is ruled out because I have not read more than a frac- 
tion of the newspaper reports you have gone through. All I can say is that 
if I had gone through all the reports, I am sure I could not have reduced 
them to so clear a summary statement.. 

As for general comment, probably all that I could offer is already contained 
in the editorial article I had already sent forward for Pacific Affairs, which you 
have probably read by now. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3205 

Half an hour ago I received your letter of 4th September (which made pretty 
good time) and I have already gone over the enclosures. I found Hansu Chan's 
retort to Isaacs very interesting 

Mr. Morris. Is that Hansu Clian, Dr. Chi ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It has been so stated before this committee, I believe, 
I don't know [reading] : 

but here again I should not like to venture a detailed comment, or even a sum- 
mary for print. For this also, anything that I could commit myself to signing 
is in the editorial already sent. 

I am certainly not the man to risk summarizing so closely worded an argument, 
because my knowledge of Communist controversy is so limited that I should be 
quite capable of giving a Trotskyist summary of a Stalinist plemic. I could 
probably do it the other way round just as easily. Moreover I have just been 
traveling with Wittfogel who, as you probably know and I dimly suspect, is a bit 
of a heretic from either the Stalinist or the Trotskyist point of view when it 
comes to the bourgeois feudal controversy over the nature of Chinese society, 
so I am in a complete fog. 

In the editorial referred to I did try to take into consideration some of the 
points raised by Isaacs, but I did not refer directly to his article because, once 
more, of lack of confidence in my own understanding of the controversial issues. 
Anyhow that article is as far as I should care to go for the present. 

What I should like to suggest is that you yourself summarize the Hansu Chan 
article, in the manner you suggested for me. You are far more competent than I, 
and since the reply appeared in America and you are the American correspond- 
ing editor, your position entitles you to sign the notice. You could do it in such 
a manner as not to draw any accusation of official American IPR approval of 
the Stalinist view. (Your Survey article was a masterpiece of detached 
statement. ) 

There is an appalling accumulation of work here, but I'll be writing again 
when I have thrown some of it over my shoulder. 
Yours, 

O. L. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I put that in the record in comiection 
with the series of questions on wliether or not Mr. Lattimore knew 
that JMr. Field was a Communist while he was editor of Pacific 
Affairs. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. Has it been received ? 

The Chairman. It is received and inserted in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 492" and was 
read in full.) 

Mr. SonRWiNE. To clear this up, here is the June 1939 copy of 
Pacific Affairs. Can you say now the extent of the editorial author- 
ity or responsibility that Mr. Field had at that time in that year? 

Mr. Lattimore. We got the wrong issue. It is torn here. 

Mr. Sourwine. I am sorry. Try this one. 

Mr. Lattimore. This seems to confirm my memory that in the latter 
years of my editorship of Pacific Affairs there were no national edi- 
torial — what would you call them — correspondents or something of 
that kind as such. All that is listed here is the national secretary, and 
I am simply listed as editor. I believe that in the earlier years we 
did have national corresponding editors. 

Mr. Sourwine. Wliat issue is that ? 

Mr. Lattimore, This is September 1939. 

Mr. Sourwine. We are talking about the year 1939, aren't we? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. In that year 1939 you are saying now in that 
year 1939 there were no corresponding editors. 

Mr. Lattimore. Apparently not. 



3206 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And therefore Mr. Field had what degree of edi- 
torial responsibility and authority ? 

Mr. Lattimore. None. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. In this letter which you have just read, of 1935, 
you did refer to Mr. Field as the American corresponding editor or 
words to that effect, did you not ? ^ 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I did. I believe in earlier years we had sucn 

a system. » , » 

Mr. SoTJRWiNE. Was Mr. Field in 1935 secretary of the American 

IPR? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't remember. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. He was in 1939? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think so. We can confirm that in a moment. 
I am not sure of the year when he resigned. 

Mr. SoURWiNE. I hope I haven't handed you the one with the torn 
page. 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; you have. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Sorry. 

Mr. Lattimore. Of the United States, yes. Field was. 

Mr. SoURWiNE. Was secretary of the American IPR ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

The Chairman. What year? 

Mr. Lattimore. 1939. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are saying, however, that notwithstanding 
that fact, Mr. Field did not in 1939 have any editorial responsibility 
or authority with regard to Pacific Affairs? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. And you are stating in this letter of October 3 to 
you which has been read and discussed, which starts out with a ref- 
erence to your piece called Third Alternative, that in your opinion 
Mr. Field was not attempting to exert or express any editorial au- 
thority or responsibility? 

Mr. Lattimore. In my opinion, he was probably one of several 
people to whom an article had been sent for prepublication criticism. 

Mr. FoRTAs. Is this a good time for a recess ? 

The Chairman. I wonder. Senator Smith, do you have to go 
away tonight? 

Senator Smith. Not right away. 

The Chairman. Senator Ferguson is not here. I would like to 
have more in attendance, if it was possible. 

Mr. Sourwine. Could you recess for 10 minutes? 

The Chairman. I was thinking of recessing for the day. Would 
that be satisfactory ? 

Senator Smith. Yes. It suits me. 

The Chairman. Senator O'Conor. 

Senator O'Conor. Whatever you say, Mr. Chairman. I would be 
glad to stay. 

INIr. FoRTAs. Before you recess for today, may I note the appear- 
ance here of my partner, Thurman Arnold, as counsel for Mr. Latti- 
more, since I may have to be absent from time to time. 

The Chairman. We will reconvene at 10 o'clock tomorrow morn- 
ing and continue. 

{Whereupon, at 3 : 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m. 
Saturday, March 1, 1952.) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC KELATIONS 



SATURDAY, MARCH 1, 1952 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration 
OF the Internal Security Act and Other Internal 

Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The subcommittee met at 10 : 15 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 
424, Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat McCarran (chairman) presid- 
ing. 

Present : Senators McCarran, O'Conor, Smith, Ferguson, and Wat- 
kins. 

Also present : Senators McCarthy and Mundt. 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, committee counsel; Robert Morris, 
subcommittee counsel; Benjamin Mandel, research director. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF OWEN LATTIMORE, ACCOMPANIED EY THTJRMAN 

AENOLD, COUNSEL— Eesumed 

Mr. Arnold. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to request 
the introduction into evidence of Mr. Lattimore's testimony at execu- 
tive session, about which he was questioned yesterday, the entire 
testimony, that is. 

The Chairman. That will be dealt with at a later time. 

You may proceed, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, was John K. Fairbank a subordinate 
of yours in the Office of War Information ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Was he what? 

Mr. Morris. A subordinate of yours while you were director of 
Pacific Affairs in the Office of War Information. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe he was. The records would show. 

Mr. Morris. What was his position in the Office of War Informa- 
tion ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I am rather vague what his position was. He 
was never as I recall a direct subordinate of mine. 

Mr. Morris. He was not head of the China Division ? 

Mr. Lattimore. If he was, I think it must have been after I ceased 
to be Deputy Director of Pacific Operations. 

Senator Ferguson. What was the date of that? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that was in 1944. I don't recall exactly 
when I ceased to be Deputy Director, but remained in contact with the 
OWI as a consultant. 

Senator Ferguson. How long were you a consultant, up to what 
time ? 

3207 



320S INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. Into 1945, I think. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know the time in 1945 ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't recall exactly. I am sure the records 
•will show. 

Senator Ferguson. Speaking of subordinates, could I inquire into 
another matter, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Who was the subordinate, vou or Mr. Field, in 
thelPR? 

Mr. Lattimore. Neither. 

Senator Ferguson. On a equal basis ? 

Mr. Lattimore. On a totally different basis. I was an employee of 
the Pacific Council, and he was an employee of the American Council. 

Senator Ferguson. I notice in some of these letters that you were 
exchanging opinions, that is, as to criticism of articles, whether they 
went in a certain way. 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; those were purely on an individual basis. 

Senator Ferguson. Rather than as employees or supervisors? 

Mr. Lattimore. Surely. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that John K. Fairbank used the White 
House as his mailing address ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I didn't know that, unless I read it in the press 
since these hearings began, but I don't recall it. 

Mr. Morris. So you would not know then that he used as his return 
address, care of Mr. Lauchlin Currie, care of the White House, Wash- 
ington D. C? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't think I ever knew that. 

Mr. Morris. At this time, Mr. Chairman, may I make reference at 
this part of the record to exhibit 129 introduced in our open hearings 
of August 16, 1951, which shows a letter by John K. Fairbank, re- 
turn address care of Mr. Lauchlin Currie, the Wliite House, Wash- 
ington, D. C. That is in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Morris. Was Michael Greenberg your successor at Pacific Af- 
fairs ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe he was. When I resigned as editor — 
and my recollection is I didn't have anything to do with it — but my 
recollection since looking up old issues of Pacific Affairs is that he 
became managing editor or something of that kind I think Mr. Hol- 
land became the actual editor. 

Mr. Morris. I have the first volume after your retirement, Mr. Lat- 
timore, which is the September 1941 volume and that lists "editor, Ed- 
ward C. Carter, managing editor, Michael Greenberg." 

Mr. Lattimore. Oh, that would be correct. 

Mr. Morris. Are you acquainted with the testimony before this 
committee by several witnesses that Michael Greenberg was a mem- 
ber of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I have seen that in the transcript. 

Mr. Morris. Was Michael Greenberg worlring for Mr. Currie at the 
Wliite House at the time you were there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Not at the time I was there, I don't think. 

Mr. Morris. He came along later, is that it? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe so : ves. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3209 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have in the record at 
this time the executive session testimony of Mr. Stanley Hornbeck 
on the question of Mr. Currie and Mr. Lattimore. 

The Chairman. All right ; produce it. 

Mr. Morris. It is two pages, and I would like to read it into the 
record. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Morris. This is the testimony of Stanley K. Hornbeck, taken 
February 15, 1952. It reads : 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Hornbeck, have you ever been sworn in this hearing? 

Mr. Hornbeck. No. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Do you solemnly swear that in the matter now 
pending before the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the United States 
Senate, you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God ? 

Mr. Hornbeck. I do. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Hornbeck, will you state your full name? 

Mr. Hornbeck. Stanley K. Hornbeck. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Hornbeck, what is your present address? 

Mr. Hornbeck. 2139 Wyoming Avenue, Washington, D. C. 

Senator Ferguson. Dr. Hornbeck, have you been subpenaed to come here this 
morning? 

Mr. Hornbeck. I have. 

Senator Ferguson. By the committee? 

Mr. Hornbeck. Yes ; by the committee. 

Senator Ferguson. And you are here in response to that subpena? 

Mr. Hornbeck. I am. 

Senator Ferguson. And therefore you have been sworn as a witness in this 
hearing? 

Mr. Hornbeck. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Hornbeck, how long were you associated with the United 
States Department of State? 

Mr. Hornbeck. My service in the United States Department of State was in 
two periods : First, in the Office of Economic Adviser from 1921 to 1924 ; second, 
from 192S continuously to 1944. In the second period I was from 1928 to 1937 
Chief of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs ; from 1937 to January 15, 1944, 
adviser on political relations ; from then until May 1, 1944, Director of the Of- 
fice of Far Eastern Affairs ; and from then until September 21, 1944, special 
assistant to the Secretai-y of State. 

Mr. Morris. Do you recall a conversation in 1941 that you had with Mr. Lauch- 
lin Currie in connection with the appointment which was about to be made of 
Owen Lattimore as special adviser to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek? 

Mr. Hornbeck. I do. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us about it? 

Mr. Hornbeck. In 1941, shortly before Mr. Owen Lattimore went to China as 
adviser to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, Mr. Lauchlin Currie came, on his 
initiative, to me in my office in the old State, War, and Navy Building. Mr. 
Currie was at that time one of the several anoymous assistants to the President, 
Mr. Roosevelt, and in that capacity he had concern, interalia, with questions of 
United States relations with and regarding China. 

On the occasion of this call, Mr. Currie said that he wished to inform me that 
Chiang Kai-shek had asked President Roosevelt to nominate an American na- 
tional to be an adviser to him, Chiang, and that President Roosevelt was nom- 
inating Mr. Owen Lattimore. 

I inquired whether President Roosevelt had consulted the Secretary of State. 
Mr. Currie replied in the negative. 

I expressed doubt whether an assumption by the President of responsibility 
for such a nomination was a wise procedure and whether the nomination of Mr. 
Lattimore was a suitable nomination. 

I made reference to a procedure which has been followed over a period of many 
years in the nominating of a series of very able American advisers to the Govern- 
ment of Siam (Thailand), and I asked who had suggested to President Roosevelt 
the nomination of Mr. Lattimore. 



3210 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Cui-rie replied that he, Currie, had. I said that in that case it should be 
an easy matter to effect a reconsideration. Mr. Currie said that he was sure 
that President Roosevelt's action had been appropriate, that he was confident 
that the nomination was a suitable nomination, and that, in any event, there 
could be no reconsideration inasmuch as the nomination had already been sent to 
Chiang Kai-shek * * *_ 

To that extent I would like to have the executive session minutes of 
Mr, Hornbeck introduced into the record. 

The Chairman. Does anyone want anything; further in this record 
introduced ? 

Mr. Arnold. ^lay I look at it? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. There is something on another page if you like 
you may put in the record. 

Mr. Arnold. I will read it over first. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Lattimore, on yesterday, I inquired as to 
whether or not you knew who had proposed your name to President 
Roosevelt for appointment as adviser to the Generalissimo, and a ques- 
tion or two was asked with respect to Mr. Lauchlin Currie. 

Did you know of any consultation had by the President with the 
Department of State prior to your designation as adviser? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't believe I ever heard of anything of 
the kind. 

Senator O'Conor. Did it occur to 5^011 it was important to know 
whether or not the recommendation was or was not approved by the 
Secretary of State? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. At that time I was so unfamiliar with 
the workings of the Government that I would not have known any- 
think of that kind. 

The Chairman. Senator, do 3'ou say that on yesterday you asked 
him who had recommended him, and that he said he did not know ? 

Senator O'Conor. No, I did not give the answer. I said I asked 
him certain questions with respect to who had recommended him to 
the President for appointment as adviser to the Generalissimo. I did 
not state what his answer was. 

The Chairman. Did he say then Lauchlin Currie? You said so 
this morning ; that is the reason I am asking you. 

Senator O'Conor. No ; I did not so intend to say. 

The Chairman. That is what I wanted to clear up. 

Senator O'Conor. I am obliged to you for clearing the record, Mr. 
Chairman. I do not think you said that. Your response did not 
indicate that. 

Mr, Lattimore. No ; I did not. 

Senator O'Conor. I said there had been a series of questions asked 
after with respect to Lauchlin Currie, but I did not mean to say you 
had made any response, and your answer indicated you had not. 

Mr, Lattimore. That is right. 

Senator O'Conor. Was there any discussion whatsoever as to the 
participation of the Secretary of State in the designation or in the 
recommendation for your appointment ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Between me and somebody else ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall. 

Senator Ferguson, Mr. Chairman, might I inquire? 

The Chairman. Yes. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3211 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lattimore, who first notified you or con- 
tacted you in relation to this appointment ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My recollection on that is very clear, Senator. I 
came to my office at the Johns Hopkins one morning and was told 
that there was a White House call for me. So, I answered that call, 
put it back through the operator, and the man at the other end said^ 
"This is Lauchlin Currie, Assistant to the President. Could you come 
over and see me?" And he made an appointment, and I went over 
to see him. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that the first that you knew^ of Lauchlin 
Currie ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not believe I had ever heard of him before. 

Senator Ferguson. Of course, being a White House call, you re- 
membered who called you ? 

Mv. Lattimore. It was also the first time I ever had a message to 
call the "\^^iite House. 

Senator Ferguson. I can see the reason for your remembering. Did 
Mr. Currie ask you what your experience was or anything? 

Mr. Latitmore. I think he did in a general way ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he indicate that it was all accomplished; 
that you were really being asked, or was he just asking you, if they 
asked you, w^ ould you consider it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That was the nature of the interview; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. That if they asked you 

Mr. Lattimore. If I w^ere asked, would I be available. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk to the President at that time? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that I did not talk to the President until 
after one or two more interviews with Mr. Currie. I didn't talk to 
the President until my name had gone in and the President was 
prepared to accept it. 

Senator Ferguson. So, your conversations with Mr. Currie, I as- 
sume, were along the line of what your experience had been, and so 
forth? 

Mr. Lattimore. I presume that was what it was. I haven't any 
notice of those conversations. 

Senator Ferguson. So, you have every reason to believe that Mr. 
Currie did recommend your appointment, because you had not talked 
to the President before it was actually sent in, as you say, 
accomplished. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know whether that would constitute a rec- 
ommendation. I don't even know whether Mr. Currie sent in more 
than one name. 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask that. 

Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this committee has been unable 
to subpena Mr. Currie. Is that correct, counsel ? 

Mr. Morris. Pardon? 

Senator Ferguson. It has been impossible for the committee to 
subpena Mr. Currie? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Currie is in South America, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson, Yes. That is the reason I would like to ask the 
Chair this morning to write or wire Mr. Currie; and I know he is 
not subject to the subpena, being out of the countiy, but to request 
his appearance before this committee. He is named so many times 



3212 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

in relation to this IPK that I just feel to complete the testimony we 
ought to do everything we can to have Mr. Currie come back. 

The Chairman. We will see that that is done right away. That 
will be the order. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, do you recall the date of the call 
from the White House ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't recall the exact date. 

Senator Smith. Do you have a record, or do you recall the date 
that you came over to see Mr. Currie ? Was it that day or the fol- 
lowing day? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no record of it, and no exact recollection. I 
do not know whether it was the next day or the day after. It was 
very soon. 

Senator Smith. Do you recall the month ? What is the nearest date 
that you can pin it down to ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think it was probably June 1941. 

Mr. Arnold. Mr. Chairman, may I read into the record the next 
sentence which follows [referring to executive session testimony of 
Stanley K. Hornbeck]. 

The Chairman. That which was read by counsel ? 

Mr. Arnold. Yes. 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. Arnold (reading) : 

It may be noted in the sketch of Mr. Lattimore which appears in Who's Who 
in America that Mr. Lattimore is stated to have been political adviser to Chiang 
Kai-shek, 1941^2. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, would this be a good place to clear 
up a point that is a little bit uncertain in earlier questioning this 
morning ? 

The Chairman. Very well. 

Mr. SoiJRWiNE. And that is the position held by Mr. John K. Fair- 
bank with the United States Information Service in China. I hold in 
my hand a bulletin of America's Town Meeting of the Air, the Decem- 
ber 6, 1949, broadcast, being the five hundred and eighty-ninth broad- 
cast. This appears to be a transcript of the broadcast and is published 
as such by Town Hall, Inc., and it indicates on page 8 at the bottom of 
the page and running to the top of the next page that Mr. George V. 
Denny, Jr., who was moderator, introduced Dr. John K. Fairbank as — 

Professor of history at Harvard University, vs'ho served as special assistant to the 
American Ambassador in China in 1942 and 1943, who as Director of the United 
States Information Service in China in 1945 and 1946, and is the author of many 
books, among them The United States and China. We take pleasure in welcom- 
ing back to Town Hall Dr. John K. Fairbank. 

I ask, Mr. Chairman, that that paragraph of introduction may be 
placed in the record at this point, and then I would like to ask Mr. 
Lattimore does that refresh your memory at all with regard to the 
post that Dr. Fairbank held ? 

Mr. Latitmore. It doesn't exactly refresh my memory. It takes 
the place of my memory. I might say that the United States Informa- 
tion Service in Chungking was, to the best of my recollection, under 
the Embassy, although it used and distributed materials from the 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3213 

Office of War Information, It was a complicated bureaucratic set-up 
there in which Office of War Information operated in the United 
States, but by this time, I think, American personnel, all American 
nonmilitary personnel of various kinds, were coordinated under the 
Embassy, and under the authority of the Embassy. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Were you witli OWI in 1945 and 1946 ? 

Mr. Lattimore. In 1945-46, a part of 1945 I may have still been 
with them as a consultant. 

Mr. SoTTRWiNE. Would you say that this does not indicate in any 
way that Mr. Fairbank was ever joiw subordinate? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would say so ; yes. 

The Chairman. Say "Yes." Let us clear that. 

Mr. Lattimore. I would sa}^ it does not indicate that he was my 
subordinate. 

The Chairman. The matter will be inserted in the record. I think, 
if I were to be technical about it, it does not have a place in the record. 
It goes to the weight rather than the admissibility of it. But it will go 
into the record. The question is whether the party who made the 
statement knew what he was talking about at the time. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. Chairman, so the record may show, this was 
offered to refresh the witness' memory, not as evidence. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, were you and John K. Fairbank and 
Alger Hiss frequent associates? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. Were you, Mr. Fairbank, and Mr. Hiss together at 
any time ? 

^Ir. Lattimore. Xot that I can recall. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever invite x^lger Hiss to your home ? 

The Chairman. I would like to have that last question read again, 
to the witness. 

(The question was read by the reporter as follows :) 

Were you, Mr. Fairbank, and Mr. Hiss together at any time? 

The Chairman. Do you want the answer to stand to that as "No' ? 

Mr. Lattemore. That Mr. Hiss, jNIr. Fairbank, and I were evwr 
together ? 

The Chairman. Read the question again to the witness. 

(The question was reread by the reporter.) 

Mr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever invite Alger Hiss to your home ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes; I did. At the time that is was reported in 
the press that Mr. Hiss was coming to Baltimore to initiate a libel 
action, I wrote to him and asked him to stay with us if he so desired. 

I might add that, just a few months before that, Mr. Hiss had been 
given an honorary degree at my university, and I thought it was an 
ordinary courtesy to offer. 

Senator Ferguson. What was the day or the year that this hap- 
pened, that you invited him to come to your home ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't recall the year. It could be verified from 
the press, of course. 

Senator Ferguson. The libel action was against Chambers? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe so ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. At that particular time, there had been quite 
a bit of newspaper publicity of Chambers' testimony against Hiss: 
t;hat he was a Communist. 

8S348 — 52 — pt. 9 21 



3214 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't recall in detail. I supose that is true. 
Senator Ferguson. Wait a minute. You just suppose that is true. 
Let us get a little more definite. Did you not know it was true ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't recall exactly how much I had read in the 
press at that time. I can't recall the date exactly. I could look it 
up or anybody could look it up. It would be in the press at the time. 
Senator Ferguson. I am not talking about looking it up. What 
I want to know is what you knew. You say that you saw in the 
press that he was starting an action in the Federal court, and who 
was the action against ? 
Mr. Lattimore. The action was against Whittaker Chambers. 
Senator Ferguson. And it would be assumed by you — would it 
not — that the action was by Hiss against Chambers in relation to 
Chambers' testimony, and his statement on the radio backing up his 
testimony ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't remember that much in detail. My 
present recollection, Senator, is that the Chambers charges against 
Hiss came out, so to speak, in progressive steps, and I can't remember 
how much had come out at that time. 

Senator Ferguson. Was there any doubt in your mind, when you 
invited ]\Ir. Hiss to your home to stay, that he had been accused as a 
Communist? 

Mr. Lattimore. He had been accused of something serious 

The Chairman. The question is, "Was there any doubt in your 
mind?" 

Mr. Lattimore. I can't remember what was in my mind at the time, 
Senator. My present recollection is that he had by then been accused 
of something serious enough to make him initiate a libel action. But 
exactly what the accusation was at that stage, I don't remember now. 
Senator Ferguson. Had he not been also accused by sworn testi- 
mony that he had removed papers from the files of the State Depart- 
ment and given them to unauthorized Communist sources. 

Mr. Lattimore. My present recollection. Senator, doesn't carry that 
much detail. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, I am not getting answers to 
questions on matters that I think a man ought to remember. 
The Chairman. You are not getting the answers. 
Senator Ferguson. Personally, I think a man ought to remember 
some of the things I am asking. Wlien a man comes to a city, having 
started an action against another man for libel, and a man invites 
him to his home to stay with him in his home, he ought to know 
something about these things. 

Mr. Lattimore. I am sorry. Senator; my memory simply does not 
measure up to your specifications. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it a blank on this matter? 
Mr. Lattimore. No; it is not a blank. I remember that I asked 
him. I remember that he had been accused of something serious 
enough to make him initiate a libel action ; but, as I say, my present 
general recollection is that the charges against Hiss came out in suc- 
cessive stages ; and, without looking up the newspaper record of the 
time, I wouldn't be able to say even what I ought to remember as of 
a particular date. 

Senator Ferguson. How long did he remain at your home ? 



^ INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3215 

Mr. Lattimore. He didn't come. He didn't accept the invitation. 

Senator Ferguson. Had you called him on the phone or how did 
you contact him to come to your home ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I wrote him a letter, I think. I don't believe I 
called him on the phone. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you have a copy of that letter ? 

Mr. Lattuviore. I don't think I do. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you have your files searched and ascertain 
if you do have '^ 

Mr. Lattimore. Surely. I have gone through my files, of course, 
during the past couple of years or so, and I have never seen a letter 
to that effect, or a carbon of a letter to that effect. I may say that my 
files are not kept very meticulously. 

The Chairman. Did you write him a letter ? 

Mr. Lattimore. My recollection is that I wrote him a letter. 

Senator Ferguson. To what address, do you know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. My presumption would be that I 
wrote to the Department of State. It might be in their files. 

Senator Ferguson. Did the newspaper article say what day he 
would be at Baltimore? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't even recall that. I don't recall whether 
the newspaper said that he would be coming or would be coming on a 
particular date, or would be coming in the near future. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk to him after the day you wrote him 
the letter? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. You have never seen him since then? 

Mr. Lattimore. I have never seen him since then. 

Senator Ferguson. And you have not talked to him on the tele- 
phone ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe I ever did. In fact, I don't believe 
I ever talked to him on the telephone. 

Senator Ferguson. Even before that? 

Mr. Lattimore. Before or after. 

Senator Ferguson. But you had seen him before that time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had seen him occasionally when he was in Mr. 
Hornbeck's office. He sat in Mr. Hornbeck's outer office, and I would 
stop and chat with him while waiting for an appointment with Mr. 
Hornbeck, and then I saw him on the occasion when he received dU 
honorary degree at the Johns Hopkins. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he stay at your home when he received the 
degree ? 

Mr. Lattuviore. No, sir ; he never stayed at my home. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you class him as a close personal friend 
prior to that time ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Can vou give a reason why you requested hnn 
to come and stay at your home ? Was there anything you wanted to 

talk over with him ? • ^ i ^ ^ 

Mr. Lattimore. No; there was nothing particularly I wanted to 

talk over with him. It was just a general gesture of courtesy. 

Senator Ferguson. How long after you wrote the letter would 

you say the pumpkin papers appeared in the press ? 



3216 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. I have no recollection. 

Senator Ferguson. Yon do remember that. 

Mr. LiTTiMORE. I remember they appeared, but the date sequence is 
beyond me. 

Senator Watkins. I understood the witness to say that he addressed 
the letter to Mr. Hiss at the Department of State. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think I probably would have. 

Senator Watkiiss. Was he in the Department of State at that time? 

Mr. Morris. Do you have a copy of the letter, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Watkins. Just a moment. May I get an answer to that? 
Do you still say you sent it to him to the Department of State ? 

]\Ir. Lattimore. I probably sent it to the Department of State. I 
have just turned to my wife and asked her if she had any supplement- 
ary memory, and she says that she thinks at that time Mr. Hiss was no 
longer with the Department of State, but with the Carnegie Endow- 
ment for Peace. 

Senator Watkins. You knew that as a matter of fact he was with the 
Carnegie Endowment at that time ? 

jMr. Lattimore. It liad slipped my memory in answering this ques- 
tion. As I say, my memory of the sequence of dates is very vague. 
But I should have remembered it, because now that the point has been 
brought up, I remember that his being given an honorary degree at the 
Hopkins was more or less on the occasion of his leaving the State De- 
partment and taking up the directorship, or whatever it is, of the 
Carnegie Endowment. 

Senator Watkins. When did that happen? When was this honor 
conferred on him ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I think probably about 1946. 

Senator Watkins. That was a long time before the Chambers ex- 
posures. 

Mr. Lattimore. It was before the Chambers charges, before any 
question of libel action, as I recall 

Senator Watkins. Is this the only occasion that you have ever writ- 
ten to Mr. Hiss ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe it is. 

Senator Watkins. Do you not know ? 

Mr. Lattimore. That is the only one I can recall. I doubt very much 
if I ever wrote to him on any other occasion. I would not have any 
reason to write to him. 

Senator Watkins. Are you confused in your mind on that question 
whether you did or did not write to him other times ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. But I am trying to carry my memory back a 
rather long way. My general recollection is that I would never have 
had anything to write to Mr. Hiss about, and therefore I don't suppose 
I did, but there may have been some bureaucratic matter in the Govern- 
ment during previous years which had involved my writing to him 
so I don't want to say flatly that I didn't. I just can't remember any- 
thing that I did write to him about or would have written to him 
about. 

Senator Watkins. This may have been covered by other questions; 
I came in late — if it has, you can so indicate — how long did you know 
Mr. Hiss at the time you wrote him this letter ? 



INSTITUTE or PACIFIC RELATIONS 3217 

Mr. Lattimore. I had known him casually — I doubt if it could 
have been before 1938. 

Senator Watkins. At least from 1938 on. 

Mr. Lattimore. I put 1938 as the earliest possible date because that 
was when I came to live in Baltimore after returning from China. 
But I may not actually have met him until 1939 or 1940. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by "casually" in that respect, as 
you put it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would like to have my words read back. I forget 
how I used it. 

(The answer was read by the reporter as follows :) 

I had known him casually — I doubt if it could have been before 1938. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by the word "casually," as you 
use it there ? 

Mr. Lattimore. As I used it there, it might be something like drop- 
ping him a note saying "I am coming over to Washington and would 
like to see Mr. Hornbeck. Can you make an appointment?" Or some- 
thing of that sort. 

Senator Watkins. Did you occasionally drop over to see Mr. Horn- 
beck in the State Department ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I did ; yes. 

Senator Watkins. Were you in the habit of asking Mr. Hiss to 
make the appointment? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Hiss was 

The Chairman. The question was, "Were you in the habit" — and 
that can be answered "Yes" or "No." 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe I was in the habit. 

Senator Watkins. What recalled to your mind that you might have 
sent a note to him asking him to make an appointment ? 

Mr. Latitmore. I think this came up before you came in. 

The Chairman. No ; it did not. 

Mr. Laitimore. That Mr. Hiss sat in the outer office of Mr. Horn- 
beck. He was sort of an assistant to Mr. Hornbeck and was therefore 
the man I saw when I was waiting for an appointment with Mr. 
Hornbeck. 

Senator Watkins. Over what period of time had your visits to 
see Mr. Hornbeck occurred ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I saw Mr. Hornbeck occasionally— I can't recall 
how frequently — from 1938; that is, from the time I came home to 
settle down permanently here, until, well, until his retirement from 
the State Department. But I wouldn't see him very frequently, and 
I certainly wouldn't see him on any regular schedule. 

Senator Watkins. What were the purposes of your conferences 
with Mr. Hornbeck ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Hornbeck was one of the top men for the Far 
East in the Department of State, and at that time from 1938 on up to 
Pearl Harbor, there were many questions of American policy relating 
to Japan, on the one hand, and China on the other. Those were the 
years of very lively discussion of the desirability or possibility of an 
embargo of war materials to Japan, and my present recollection is that 
I principally went in to see Mr. Hornbeck from time to time to get 
from him a statement on where policy stood at the moment, just as 
newspapermen and academic men would do at that time. 



3218 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator "Watkins. Did you ever go at his instance? 
Mr. Lattimore. At Mr. Hornbeck's instance? 
Senator Watkins. Yes, or his invitation? 
Mr. Lattimore. I don't believe so. 

Senator Watkins. Did you visit anyone else at the State Depart- 
ment on any of these occasions that you visited Mr. Hornbeck? 
Mr. Lattimore. I remember visiting Mr. Hull once. 
The Chairman. All right. Let us proceed. 
Senator Ferguson. One more question, if I might. 
Mr. Lattimore, when was the first that anyone testified before a con- 
gressional hearing that came to your knowledge or to the public that 
you were pro-Communist, if they did so testify? 
Mr. Lattimore. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you not any recollection at all of when it 
became public from some committee that someone had testified that 
you might even be pro-Communist or connected with the Communists? 
Mr. Arnold. May I consult with him ? 
Senator Ferguson. Yes. 
(Mr. Lattimore consulted with Mr. Arnold.) 

Mr. Lattimore. I believe that the first case of that was when I 
was in Afghanistan, and received wires from press representatives 
saying that Senator McCarthy had made charges against me. 

Senator Ferguson. Was that before or after you invited Mr. Hiss to 
your home ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Long after, I suppose. 
Senator Ferguson. It was long after ? 
Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. So no one had mentioned you in relation to com- 
munism so far as committees were concerned at the time you invited 
Mr. Hiss ? 
Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe so. 

Senator Ferguson. And did you get a letter from Mr. Hiss declin- 
ing your invitation ? 
Mr. Lattimore. I believe I did : yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what he said, or do you have a 
copy of that letter? Will you try to produce that letter for us? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, I don't have a copy, but I remember fairly 
clearly that I received just a brief courteous note from him, saying 
that he had relatives in Baltimore and would stay with them, or some- 
thing of that sort. 

Senator Ferguson. At the time you invited him to your home, you 
were professor at Johns Hopkins ? 
Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. And you did not know the merits of the case 
for the libel? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Senator Ferguson. You did not know, then, whether or not it was 
an actual fact that Mr. Hiss had delivered papers to the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Lattimore. I thought 

The Chairman. The question is. You did not know ? 
Mr. Lattimore. I did not know for a fiict and I tliought that when 
charges are made against a man, when he has denied those charges, 
and has said he is going to take legal action, it is a courteous thing for 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3219 

his friends to make some little gesture that shows that they do not 
believe that mere accusation is equivalent to conviction. 

Senator Ferguson. You were one of his friends, then ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, Well, I was an acquaintance, rather than a 
friend. 

Senator Ferguson. You thought that was the duty of an acquaint- 
ance; that if a man was being accused of delivering secret papers from 
the State Department to the Conmnunists, and accused of being a Com- 
munist, that it would be the duty of an acquaintance who was a pro- 
fessor at a school to invite the man to his home ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was an acquaintance who had been present when 
he received an honorary degree at my university. I knew that the 
president of my university, the late Isaiah Bowman, had an extremely 
high opinion of Mr. Hiss, and the general atmosphere in which I had 
some acquaintance with Mr. Hiss was that this whole business was 
an incredible charge. 

Senator Ferguson. How long after the degree did you hear that 
he was accused of the accusations that were being made? 

Mr. Lattimore. At present I can't recall the time interval, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. He got his degree before the accusations ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, precisely. 

Senator Ferguson. And the accusations, sworn testimony, did not 
make any difference to you? 

Mr. Lattimore. My attitude was that 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. You can answer that "Yes" or 
"No." Sworn testimony did not make any difference to you? 

Mr. Lattimore. Sworn testimony did not make enough difference 
to me to make me believe that a man's friends and acquaintances 
should begin to treat him as guilty merely on a charge and before 
both sides of the case had been heard. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Senator Smith. 

Senator Smith. Mr. Lattimore, where did you say you were when 
you first heard the news that Senator McCarthy had charged 

Mr. Lattimore. I was in Afghanistan. 

Senator Smith. How long did you stay there after that? 

Mr. Lattimore. It may have been 5 or 6 days; it may have been 
a week. 

Senator Smith. Then where did you go ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Then I returned to this country. 

Senator Smith. Did you stop en route between Afghanistan and 
America any day or 2 or ,3 days, any length of time at all? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. I stayed between planes, while making con- 
nections. I think I stayed, oh, for one night at Karachi, Pakistan. 

Senator Smith. That is the only place you spent as much as a day 
or night ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes, and may I say, as an example of the way that 
people react to unproveh charges, that during my stay overnight and 
into the next day before catching my plane in Karachi, the American 
Ambassador in Karachi, a very fine gentleman from my own State 
of Maryland, invited me to lunch. 

The Chairman. All right. Senator. 

Senator Smith. That is all. 

Senator O'Conor. At whose instance did you go to Afghanistan? 



3220 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Lattimore. United Nations. 

Senator O'Conor. And specifically upon whose invitation? 

Mr. Latiimore. Specifically on the invitation — I think I would 
have to say specifically on the invitation of the Government of Af- 
ghanistan. Would you like for me to elaborate on how that appoint- 
ment came about ? 

Senator O'Conor. It might be of interest, yes. 

Mr. Lattimore. I w^as called on the telephone from United Nations 
and told that the United Nations had a progTam of technical assistance 
to unindustrialized countries, that is the United Nations equivalent 
of point 4. That in that connection they had compiled lists of people 
who might be regarded as useful for technical assistance missions in 
different parts of the world, that a number of Americans who knew 
anything about Afghanistan and were not already engaged in Af- 
ghanistan was infinitesimal, but that they had my name as a general 
expert on the inter- Asian or central Asian area, and would I be inter- 
ested in considering taking part in a mission of that kind which was 
then being discussed with the Afghan Government. 

Senator O'Conor. Did you speak the language ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No, sir. 

Senator O'Conor. Had you ever been there before? 

Mr. Lattimore. I had never been there before. 

The Chairman. All right. You may proceed. Senator. 

Senator Sjiith. One other question following that. Dr. Lattimore, 
did you have any conference or conferences with any newspapermen 
after you left Afghanistan before you got to America ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I was interviewed, I think, by a United Press man 
at Karachi, and afterward when the plane landed at Rome, and again 
at London, pressmen came up and asked me question. I wouldn't be 
able now to identify which services they represented. At Karachi 
it may have been United Press or Associated Press, or it might have 
been both. 

Senator Smith. Do you recall any particular newspaperman that 
interviewed you at any of those places ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No; I don't recall any one by name. There was 
nobody that I had previously known. 

Senator Smith. No one you had previously known at all? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, did you receive a telegram from Ed- 
ward Carter on the day that the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact 
was announced to the world ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Mr. Morris, I believe that was the date. 

The CiiAiEMAN. You can answer that, if you know. 

Mr. Lattimore. I think that was the date. That is not of my own 
knowledge. That is as of Mr. Morris' statement in executive session. 

Mr. Morris. Did you receive on that day, Mr. Lattimore, from Mr. 
Carter an invitation to fly to Moscow at IPR expense for 3 to 5 days' 
visit. 

Mr. Lattimore. I do not believe it was an invitation, Mr. Morris. I 
believe it was a statement of possibility. 

The Chairman. Did you receive any request ? 

Mr. Lattimore. It was certainly not a request. Senator. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3221 

The Chairman. What was it ? 

Mr. Lattimore. As I remember, it was a suggestion that if I wanted 
to do that, the IPR would be willing to bear my expenses or part of 
my expenses. 

Mr. Morris. Did you go to Moscow, Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No. 

Mr. Morris. ^Vliy not ? 

Mr. Lattimore. Because my summer vacation was coming to an 
end. I wanted to spend a little time in Norway on the way home, 
and that is what I did. 

Mr. Morris. Do you recall whether or not you actually received that 
telegram from Mr. Carter ? 

Mr. Lattimore. I would not have recalled it if I had not been 
shown it in executive session. 

Mr. Morris. But you have recalled it now. 

Mr. Latttmore. I have recalled it now. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you turn it down ? 

Mr, Lattimore. It was not a telegram I took seriously at that 
time. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you indicate your refusal ? Did you send any- 
thing in the way of a communication to Mr. Carter to tell him you 
were not going to Moscow ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't believe I did. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Mandel to identify 
this, please. 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a telegram from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations, marked "Stockholm, August 24, 1939." 
addressed to "Lattimore, Cooks, STKM", and signed "Carter." 

The Chairman. That is a photostat of a document taken from the 
files of the Institute of Pacific Relations ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Mandel. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, would you look at that document and 
see if you jean recall having received that? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes ; I received it. May I read it ? 

Mr. Morris. You may, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Cable if Motylev free see you. "Would you care make 3- or 5-day visit Moscow? 
Can pay air passage and Intourist Hotel second category. 

Caetek. 

Mr. Sourwine. You say you did receive that, Mr. Lattimore? 
Mr. Lattimore. I obviously must have received it. 
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know when and where you received it? 
Mr. Lattimore. No. 
The Chairman. He said he received it. 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I don't. Until I was shown this telegram in 
executive session I had forgotten the whole incident. 
Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will that be received into the record? 
The Chairman. It has been received in the record. 



3222 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

(The telegram referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 494" and is 
as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 494 
Telegram Kungl. Telegrafverket 

Stockholm, 24 August 1939. 
alp-wqb — ppsbron 2 



sw64 1 lee mass 30w 24/8 0935 Via Goteborg-Radio 

nit — lattimore cooks stkm 

Cable if Motylev free see you. Would you care make 3- or 5-day visit Moscow? 
Can pay air passages and Intourist Hotel second category. 

CAETER. 

Mr. Morris. Did you go from Sweden to Norway at that time? 

Mr. Lattimore. just about that time ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, in view of the fact that you have just 
now read that telegram, could you now answer the question that you 
received an invitation from Mr. Carter to go to Moscow ? 

Mr. Lattimore. No ; I would not call it an invitation. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have introduced into 
the record at this time the front page of the New York Times of 
Thursday, August 24, 19,39, which carries the announcement that that 
morning the Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact had been announced to 
the world. 

The Chairmax. Wliat is the date of that? 

Mr. Morris. August 24, 1939. 

And this telegram, sir. was sent by Mr. Carter from Lee, Mass., 
apparently, at 9:35 in the morning] according to the date at the 
top of the telegram. 

Mr. Lattimore. May I ask if there is a time difference between 
Europe and the United States taken into account there? 

Mr. IlIoRRis. It is 7 hours earlier, Moscow, or 8 hours. 

Mr. Lattimore. I don't know. 

Senator Ferguson. Seven or eight. 

Mr. Morris. About 7 or 8 hours. So you see that would have been 
announced 7 or 8 hours earlier in Moscow than Lee, Mass. 

Mr. Lattimore. Is there anything to show that anyone living in 
Lee, Mass., would have known that earlier than the New York Times? 

Mr. Morris. We will have to ask Mr. Carter about that. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Mandel to introduce the next 
document. 

The Chairman. I want to act on this other offer as soon as Senator 
Ferguson is through. 

Mr. ISIoRRis. Mr. Lattimore, would you care to look at the New York 
Times of that date? 

Mr. Lattimore. Yes. 

The Chairman. It will be inserted in the record. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3223 

(The document referred to was marked "Exliibit No. 495" and is 
as follows:) 

The New York Times 

Copyright, 1939, by The New York Times Company 

Late City Edition : Partly cloudy and warm with scattered showers today and 
tomorrow. Temperatures Yesterday — Max., 88; Min., 70 

[Vol. LXXXVIII, No. 29,797. Entered as Second-Class Matter, Postofflce, New York, N. Y. 

New York, Thursday, August 24, 1939] 

Geemany and Russia Sign 10- Year Nonaggression Pact; Bind Each Other 
Not To Aid Opponents in War Acts ; Hitler Kebuffs London ; Britain and 
France Mobilize 

[Column 5] 

QUICK ACTION SEEN — BERLIN TALKS OF 6 P. M DEADLINE FOR ilOVE AGAINST POLAND 

dictator WARNS BRITISH — HENDERSON SO WROUGHT UP ON LEAVING PARLEY WITH 
HITLER THAT HE IS SPEECHLESS 

(By Otto D. Tolischus) 
Wireless to The New York Times 

Berlin, Thursday, Aug. 24. — While Foreign lilinister Joachim von Ribbentrop 
was in Moscow discussing, in the view of some German quarters, not so much a 
new nouaggression pact as "Poland's fourth and final partition," Chancellor 
'Hitler yesterday received Sir Nevile Henderson, the British Ambassador, for 
a fifteen-minute conference. 

According to reliable information, the conference ended on a rather blunt note 
that is interpreted in diplomatic quarters as possibly Herr Hitler's last word- 
The communique, issued last night, reads : 

"Complying with the wish of the British Government, the Fuehrer received 
Sir Nevile Henderson at the Berghof today. The Ambassador delivered a letter 
from the British Prime Minister addressed to the Fuehrer, which was drawn up 
in the same sense as yesterday's British communication regarding the Cabinet 
session. 

•'The Fuehrer left no doubt in the mind of the British Ambassador that the ob- 
ligations assumed by the British Government could not induce Germany to re- 
nounce the defense of her vital national interest." 

hitler's tone REPORTED BLUNT 

Actually Herr Hitler's tone to Sir Nevile was reported to have been even more 
blunt than the communique indicates. In effect, Herr Hitler told the Ambassa- 
dor that Britian had no business in Eastern Europe and that her guarantee of 
Poland merely encouraged Polish resistance to German demands, therefore it was 
up to Britain to persuade the Poles to yield or face the consequences. 

Sir Nevile left the conference so wrought up he was speechless. Not ti"usting 
his memory to repeat the exact shadings of Herr Hitler's answer, he asked that 
it be put in writing and he returned for it a half hour later. He got it couched 
in the same strong terms that Herr Hitler used to him before. 

At the same time there are also well-authenticated reports that, in addition to 
Prime Minister Chamberlain's letter, Sir Nevile also delivered to Herr Hitler an^ 
oral message that if Herr Hitler would give the Poles time Britain would try to' 
induce Poland to come forth with new proposals. In that connection some circles 
launched — perhaps not unintentionally — the suggestion that Foreign Minister 
Josef Beck of Poland might after all ask to see Herr von Ribbentrop and even 
Herr Hitler. A preliminary meeting with the former might be arranged at Riga, 
Latvia, on Herr von Ribbentrop's return from Moscow. But Polish circles de- 
clare the suggestion was "extremely unlikely" because it spelled surrender. 

As during the last few days the word in Berlin is that the zero hour, which 
will set the German Army on the march, Avill come today, and these rumors are 
supplemented with the additional detail that the exact hour is 6 P. M. [noon, 
New York time], which might mean "contact with the enemy" some time tomor- 
row. Furthermore, orders to postpone action, issued after Herr von Ribben- 
trop's departure for Moscow, have been canceled again. 



3224 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

GERMANS FT. A TED BY NEWS 

How much all that is merely a part of the "war of nerves" and how much is 
bitter reality remains to be seen. In fact the tension developing in Germany, at 
least ill ail atmosphere of fantastic unreality, is made no more real by the de- 
layed Siimiiur heat that lures the populace to the woods and beaches, and, to- 
gether witlt the elation over the Russian ijact and renewed confidence in Herr 
Hitler's diplomatic superiority over the democratic statesmen, helps to hide the 
war clouds. 

However, the rebuff to Britain yesterday, which in some quarters is compared 
witl) the rebuff administered to the French Ambassador by King William of 
Prussia just preceding the Franco-Prussian War 

[Continued on Page Two] 
******* 

[Column 8j 

Bars Hostile Union — Treaty Forbids Either to Join Ant Group Aimed at 
Other — Escape Clause Omitted — Von Kibbentbop's Car, Flting Swastika, 
Passes Beneath Red Flag at Kremlin 

(By The Associated Press) 

Moscow, Thursday, Aug. 24. — Germany and Soviet Russia early today signed 
a nonaggression pact binding each other for ten years not to "associate it.self 
Mith any other grouping of powers which directly or indirectly is aimed at the 
other party." 

By the pact they also agreed to "constantly remain in consultation with one 
another" on their common interests and to adjust differences by arbitration. 

The nonaggression clauses bound each power to refrain from any act of force 
against the other and if either party is "the object of warlike acts by a third 
power" to refrain from supporting that third power. 

The pact did not include the usual escape clause providing for its denunciation 
in case one of the contracting parties attacked a third power. This provision has 
been written into most nonaggression agreements signed in the past by Moscow. 



Arrives by Plane 
(ByG. E. R. Gedye) 
^ Special Cable to The New York Times 

Moscow, Thursday, Aug. 24. — With the meticulous punctuality of a perfectly 
staged arrival, two huge Focke-Wulf Condor planes conveying Joachim von Rib- 
bentrop, the German Foreign Minister, and his thirty-two assistants, landed at 
the Moscow airdrome on the stroke of 1 P. M. yesterday. 

Adequate but not excessive police precautions were taken at the airdrome. 
For the first time the Soviet authorities displayed the swastika banner, five of 
which flew from the front of the airdrome building, but were placed so as not to 
be visible from the outside. 

Vyacheslaff M. Molotoff was not present to welcome Herr von Ribbentrop, 
probably because he is not only Commissar of Foreign Affairs but also Premier, 
and therefore higher in rank than Herr von Ribbentrop. Instead the visitor 
was received by Vladimir P. Potemkin, Vice Commissar of Foreign Aifairs ; Mr, 
Barkoff, protocol chief; Mr. Merkuloff. Vice Commissar of Internal Affairs, 
under whom falls the NKVD, formerly the GPU; Mr. Alexandroff, chief of the 
Central European Department of the Foreign Office, and General Suvoroff, com- 
mander of the Moscow garrison. 

Almost the entire staff of the huge German Embassy, headed by the Ambas- 
sador, Count Friedrich Werner von dor Schulonbuvu:, with the military, naval and 
air attaches in uniform, was present. The German civilians mostly wore top 
hats and cutaway coats. 

The Italian Ambas.sador, Augusto Russo, with his military attache in uniform, 
also was present. The feature of the reception most commented upon was the 
absence of any Japanese representative. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 3225 

The German Embassy staff stood lined up like troops on parade. As each was 
presented to Herr von Ribbentrop he sprang to attention, clicked his heels, gave 
the Hitler salute and shook hand?^, again saluting and heel-clicking. 

IN OLD AUSTRIAN EMBASSY 

From the airdrome the party drove to the city through streets where police 
in their wliite Summer jackets stood every ten paces. For Herr von Ribbentrop 
the Soviet Government provided a large American car from the Kremlin car park, 
flying the swastika flag. 

The party drove directly to the former Austrian Embassy, where they are being 
housed. Subsequently Herr von Ribbentrop and leading members of his mission 
had luncheon at the embassy with Count von der Schulenburg. 

At about 3 : 30 P. M. Herr von Ribbentrop, accompanied by Count von der 
Schulenburg and an expert translator whom the Germans brought from Berlin, 
drove through the gates of the Kremlin with its 

[Continued on Page Six] 
* « * * » * • 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Manclel, will you identify that document ? 

Mr. ]\L\NDEL. This is a carbon copy of a letter from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations dated February 5, 1940, addressed to 
Harrison Forman, Port Washington, N. Y., with the typed signature 
of Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. Was that letter taken from the files of the Institute 
of Pacific Eelations ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is the carbon copy taken from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore, I offer you that carbon and ask you 
if you can recall having sent that letter to Mr. Forman. 

The Chairman. What is the date of that, please ? 

Mr. Lattimore. The date is February 5, 1940. May I read it ? 

Mr. Morris. By all means, Mr. Lattimore. 

Mr. Lattimore (reading) : 

Exhibit 496 

Dear Fokman : Last summer while in Sweden I got a post card you had sent 
from Moscow. After that I saw a report in a paper about your being heckled 
at a Canadian meeting. Then came your startling Christmas card, and that 
had an address on it, so I can write to make acknowledgment. 

It was interesting enough being in Sweden on the eve of war; it must have 
been even more interesting to be in Moscow when the dam was beginning to 
crack. As a matter of fact, I'd have been in Moscow myself when the Ger- 
mans marched into Poland, if it hadn't been that a cable from my New York 
office was not delivered until we reached our boat in Norway. 

You must have had an extraordinarily interesting time, and I'd like to hear 
more about it. Do you ever pass this way on your lecturing peregrinations? 
If you do, I wish you'd put up with us over night. Or is there a chance of our 
crossing anywhere else? I shall be away from here during most of the month 
of March, going o