(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 .."

r^" 



L£. 



JV^l^I^^ 



'dl 




^ 






.' ^J. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



p'".. V .u - I r 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTKATION 

OF THE INTEENAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER 

INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS 

OF THE 

U.S« C.^ COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
'• " UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-SECOND CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



PART 12 



MARCH 28, 29, 31, AND APRIL 1, 1952 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
88348 WASHING TON : 1952 

PUBLIC 



^Li£ 






COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PAT McCARRAN, Nevada, Chairman 
HARLEY M. KILGORB, West Virginia ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin 

JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota 

WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan 

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

ESTES KEPAUVER, Tennessee ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah 

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

J. G. SouRwiNE, Counsel 



Inteknal. Security Subcommittee 

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

HERBERT R. O'CONOR, 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 Morris, Special Counsel 
Benjamin Mandel, Director of Research 

II 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of — - Page 

Bisson, Thomas Arthur 4159 

Field, Frederick V 4033 

Finley, Moses 41 52 

Friedman, JuHan R 4289 

Renwanz, Lt. Col. Rowland H 4072 

III 



4034 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

ence would indicate something as to the circumstances. As I recall, 
the institute moved its office from East Fifty-second Street to its pres- 
ent address on Fifty-fifth Street, or whatever it is, at about that time. 
They moved into a smaller place. And I believe they asked a number 
of people if they had room to store a lot of excess files that apparently 
were not in current use, and it finally came around to me. I had noth- 
ing to do Avitli this. I forget who asked me, somebody in the institute 
who was active in the administration at that time. And I did have 
a private house, and it has a substantial cellar in it. It was prac- 
tically empty, and I agreed. Those are the circumstances in which 
the files were placed there. 

Mr. Morris. I believe that Mr. Holland testified that in 1947 the 
bulk of them was taken away. 

Mr. Field. I remember at that time, if that was 1947, that I believe 
I wrote a letter to the then Secretary of the American Council of the 
IPK, Mr. Lane. 

Mr. Morris. Clayton Lane? 

Mr. Field. Clayton Lane, yes — requesting him to remove the files, 
because they at that time were cluttering up my place and I didn't 
want them. And after some time I thought they had been taken away. 
I believe I was away on the west coast or somewhere at the time they 
came down to remove them. And I remember not checking whether 
they were all removed or not, and then discovering very much later 
that some of them had been left there. And I think from there on= 

Mr. Morris. What happened when vou discovered there was some 
left^ 

Mr. Field. I telephoned Mr. Holland. 

Mr. Morris. You went to his office and told him ? 

Mr. Field. Or went there and told him. 

Mr. Morris. On a Satui'day morning? 

Mr. Field. Well 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Holland come down to your home then and 
go through the files? 

Mr. Field. He came down and verified them that they were there, 
and some days later, I forget when it was, he took them 

Mr. Morris. How much time did he spend in your basement at that 
time ? 

Mr. Field. Mr. Holland? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Field. I don't think longer than to verify that such and such 
cases were IPK. files. 

Mr. Morris. I see. He was there on two occasions, was he not? 

Mr. Field. He came back to pick them up ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. But you cannot recall how much time he actually spent 
on the files? 

Mr. Field. No; except it wasn't a long time. As I say, it was to 
verify the fact that these were the IPR files. I had some private 
stuff of my own down there. 

Mr. Morris. And that was about a year ago ? 

Mr. Field. I guess that was ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. You sav you had some private things down in among 
the IPR files? 

Mr. Field. It is my house, and I have my own stuff down there, 
and he naturally went to verify what he was taking out was not my 
private property but tlie institute's. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4035 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, wlien did 5^011 first meet Mr. Barnes, Joseph 
Barnes? 

Mr. Field. In college, I snppose 19 — it was my freshman year, 
whatever that was, 1923, 1 think it was. 

Mr. Morris. And you knew him quite well during college? 

Mr. FiFXD. Yes ; I knew him quite well. 

Mr. Morris. Who worked for the Institute of Pacific Eelations 
first ? You or he ? 

Mr. Field. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Were you instrumental in his coming into the organ- 
ization ? 

Mr. Field. I testified to this before, I believe, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. In executive session. 

Mr. Field. I forget whether it was in executive session or not, 
I think that I was instrumental in the sense that I knew him and I 
suppose — I can't recall the exact circumstances. I suppose I intro- 
duced him to Mr. Carter or to someone else. And I was not instru- 
mental in the sense that I had no authority myself at that time to hire 
anybody or make such decisions. 

Mr. Morris. You were both in Moscow together in 1931, were you 
not? 

Mr. Field. No ; we were not. 

Mr. Morris. "W-lien were you in Moscow ? 

Mr. Field. I went through Moscow on my way to China in 1929. 

Mr. Morris. And then the next time ? 

Mr. Field. That is the only time I have ever been there. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Were you and Barnes together in Shanghai ? 

Mr. Field. Can I go back to that other question ? 

Mr. Morris. By all means. 

Mr. Field. I have only'been in Moscow once. I don't think Barnes 
was in Moscow in 1929. It is easily verified. We only would have 
been there together if we both attended the IPK Conference of the 
Far East, which I think was at Kyoto that year. I don't think Barnes 
had joined yet, but I am not sure. 

To go back to your last question, there was a subsequent IPR con- 
ference probably 2 years later, in 1931, in Shanghai. I think it would 
have had to be moved from some other city because of the Manchurian 
incident which had broken out at that time. I believe Barnes was at 
that conference, and if he was we were certainly together in Shanghai. 

]Mr. Morris. Do you know if Barnes was ever an employee of the 
Soviet Council of the IPR ? 

Mr. Field. I certainly have no knowledge that he was. From my 
personal knowledge I would say he never had been. 

Mr. Morris. You were in a position to know at that time, you were 
an official on the Institute of Pacific Relations at that time ? 

Mr. Field. I worked in the institute. From that experience and 
any other I have had my answer would be "No." I have no other way, 
or I have no other source of knowledge. I have no other way of 
knowing. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have found one paper generally in 
connection with one item. There were quite a few questions put to 
Mr. Field the last time he was here in connection with his application 
for an Army commission. 



4036 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator O'Conor. I recall that. That was dealt with quite exten- 
sively, you may recall. 
Mr. Field. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. We have made an effort and the Army has made an 
extensive effort to find the papers on that case, but apparently all the 
papers have been destroyed in connection with an Army order to clear 
all files. And the only thing we were able to obtain was a copy of 
his medical comment. Now, however, just very recently we did find 
a paper which throws some light on this general item, and I would 
like to introduce that into the record at this time. 

Senator O'Conor. The destruction of the papers was not, however, 
peculiar to this case? That is to say, there is no significance in the 
fact that they were destroyed ? As I understand it, no records of that 
general kind are available. 

Mr. Morris. Well, we just have no records. I would like to just 
say that without comment. 

Senator O'Conor. I see. 

Mr. Morris. And Mr. Mandell is getting that now. 

Did you know Mr. Lawrence Duggan ? 

Mr. Field. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Was he in school with you, too ? 

Mr. Field. He was in college with me. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever make an effort to start a Latin- American 
Branch of the IPR? 

Mr. Field. No, I never made such an effort. There are probably 
documents on this. My offhand recollection is that it did come up 
for discussion, and, as I recall, I personally opposed the idea of doing 
it. 

Mr. Morris. What was the reason for the opposition ? 

Mr. Field. I can't recollect, and I wouldn't be too definite about this, 
but I have sort of a vague recollection I thought it was a poor idea. 
We had plenty to do otherwise, and I didn't see very much point. 
The Latin- American countries had relatively little relation to the 
Pacific at the time. 

Mr. Morris. Lawrence Duggan was the person with whom you 
carried on the negotiations at this time ? 

Mr. Field. I carried on no negotiations. 

Mr. Morris. You carried on correspondence or had conferences on 
the subject with him, did you not? 

Mr. Field. Perhaf)s I did, I don't recall it. It is possible I did, but 
I don't recall it. 

Mr. Morris. Was Corliss Lamont a class mate of yours ? 

Mr. Field. No, he was not. He was, I forget, maybe 3 or 4 years — 
he preceded me by 3 or 4 years. 

Mr. Morris. Is he a close personal friend of yours ? 

Mr. Field. Yes, he is a good friend of mine. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, have you contributed money to the China 
Daily News or tlie New China Daily News ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that 
to do so might tend to incriminate me, and I invoke the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Morris. Did you contribute on the 26th of March, 1948, a check 
for $500 which was endorsed by Chu Tong for the New China Daily 
News? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4037 

Mr. Morris. On August 10, 1948, did you contribute a sum of $360 
to the New China Daily News ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. On December 17 of the same year did you contribute 
$450 to the New China Daily News with a check that bore the endorse- 
ment Hom Q Pan and Eugene JNIoy ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. On August 8, 1949, did you contribute $500 to the New 
China Daily News with a check which bore the endorsement of Chu 
Tong ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

INIr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, the New China Daily News has come 
up several times in our hearings, and we are trying to determine the 
political nature of the New China Daily News. We have sent a sub- 
pena to Eugene Moy and Chu Tong in order to complete this part of 
the examination, and we have been informed that Mr. Chu Tong is 
now in Red China with the Voice of China. However, Eugene Moy 
is believed to be in the country and he should be subpenaed here next 
week. 

Did you know Eugene Moy ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Chu Tong? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know if Chu Tong is now in Red China ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds, 
Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Were you in Vladivostok in 1930? 

Mr. Field. The trip to which I previously alluded took me across 
the Soviet Union and we were book on that Trans-Siberian Railway 
that normally takes you down to Manchuria. As I recall we got to 
the border just after the tracks had been taken up, and I guess it was 
the Chinese Eastern Railway dispute, and we had to be routed north 
of the Amur to Vladivostok and get a boat down to Japan. 

Mr. Morris. Who was with you at that time ? 

Mr. Field. There were a number of Americans and Englishmen, all 
of whom were going to this IPR conference. 

Mr. Morris. Was Marcel Scherer in your party ? 

Mr. Field. No; he was not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet Marcel Scherer ? 

Mr. Field. Do you want me to answer the question about who was 
there? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. I am trying to refresh your recollection. 

Mr. Field. I am trying to recall. I remember reasonably distinctly 
that Prof. William Kilpatrick was there from Columbia ; there was a 
Professor Webster from one of — from the British university called 
Aberyswyst ; there was a woman professor from the London Univer- 
sity whose name escapes me at the moment ; I think Professor Cham- 
berlain, Joseph P. Chamberlain, was on the trip, and I think Prof. 
James T. Shotwell, but I am not absolutely certain ; Jerome Green was 
on the trip; there was a lawyer from Boston who had just worked on 
whatever the current reparations plan for Germany was, whether it 
was the Dawes plan or the Young plan, he is now dead and I forget 
his name, but that can be easily identified from the membership of 
that conference. The lady, the British woman professor, was Eileeii 
Powers. 



4038 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

That is without refreshing my memory from looking at a list. That 
is probably as far as I can go now, and I am not perfectly certain 
about one or two of those. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet Marcel Scherer on that trip? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question. Let me consult with 
my attorney. 

Mr. Morris. By all means. 

Senator O'Conor. You may, 

(Mr. Field confers with his counsel.) 
I Mr. Field. I just don't remember. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know personally Mr. Shippe who wrote under 
the name of Asiaticus? 

Mr. Field. Mr. who? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Shippe — S-h-i-p-p-e. 

Mr. Field. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know the man who used the pen name 
Asiaticus ? 

Mr. Field. I don't know. 

Mr. Morris. Did you have correspondence with him ? 

Mr. Field. I can't recollect any. Mr. Shippe? 

Mr. Morris. S-h-i-p-p-e. 

Mr. Field. Just offliand, I haven't heard the name before. I may 
be quite incorrect. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Herbert Bieberman ? 

Mr. Field. May I consult my counsel ? 

Senator O'Coxor. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. Field. At that time ? 

Mr. Morris. At any time. 

Mr. Field, I decline to answer, Mr. Morris, on the same grounds I 
have given previously. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions here based 
on correspondence from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations 
about Mr. Field's associations and dealings with the Soviet Embassy, 
the Soviet consul here and tlie Amtorg Trading Corp. 

I would like to ask Mr. Field a few preliminary questions, and if 
he declines to answer I would like simply to put the documents in the 
record. 

Senator O'Conor. All right, you may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, what has your association with the Amtorg 
Trading Corp, been? 

Mr, Field, May I again consult my counsel ? Do you want to re- 
fresh my memory ? 

Mr, Morris, I will ask the question first, but I do want to say we 
have some letters here, and we would like to know to what extent you 
would be willing to testify about your dealings with the Amtorg Trad- 
ing Corp, 

I think the witness should answer the question first. 

Senator O'Conor. Just a moment. Repeat the question. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Senator O'Conor. I think the witness has a right to consult his 
counsel. 

Mr. Morris. I have given him a copy of the first letter. It is pos- 
sible Mr. Field in some capacity could have had a formal association 
that he might be willing to testify to. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4039 

Mr. Field. No, I will decline to answer that question on the grounds 
that I have previously given. 

Mr. MoREis. Did you know Mr. V. F. Prosin? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morris, on the 
same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. I would like to introduce into the record two letters 
here. One is a copy of a letter from the files of the Institute of Pacific 
Relations fi*om Mr. Field to Mr. V. F. Prosin of the Amtorg Trading 
Corp., and another from a Mr. Prosin who is listed as Chief Econ- 
omist of the Amtorg Trading Corp. 

Mr. Mandel, will you identify those letters, please ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a carbon copy taken from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations dated November 6, 1935, addressed to 
Mr. V. F. Prosin, Amtorg Trading Corp., with a typed signature of 
Frederick V. Field. Attached thereto is an original letter on the 
letterhead of V. F. Prosin, 261 Fifth Avenue, signed V. Prosin, chief 
economist, Amtorg Trading Corp., addressed to Mr. Frederick V. 
Field, director, Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. May they go into the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes; they will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 618" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 618 

November 6, 1935. 
Mr. V. F. Peosin, 

Amtorg Trading Corp., 

261 Fifth Avenue, Neio York, Neic York. 

Dear Mr. Prosin : I am very glad to reply to your letter of October 31st, with 
the following statement, which you are free to use in the Soviet newspaper 
Za Industrializaciu in connection with tlie forthcoming anniversary of the 
Soviet Republic : 

Any observer of the U. S. S. R. is inevitably impressed by the tremendous 
strides that the Soviet Union has made in its economic development. The 
speed at which industrialization has been carried on, the rate at which 
mastering of industrial technique is being achieved, the results of this 
progress as evidenced in tlie recent abolition of food rationing, give confi- 
dence in the internal strength of the U. S. S. R. We, of our Institute, 
have watched especially closely the economic development of the eastern 
sections of the Union as an indicator of the increasing unity and balance 
of the internal economy of the country. The imix)rtance of this progress 
is most obvious in international relations as it gives weight and substance 
to the determined stand for peace which has been taken by the Soviet Union. 
I regret that I have delayed several days in sending this to you but I trust 
that by dispatching it by special messenger it will reach you in time. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



V. E. PROSIN 
261 Fifth Avenue 

NEW YORK 

October 31, 1935. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

Director, Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East Fifty-second Street, Neto York City. 
My Dear Mr. Field : In connection with the forthcoming anniversary of the 
Soviet Republic, the Soviet newspaper Za Industrializacitj, organ of the Heavy 
Industries of the U. S. S. R., has requested me to secure expressions of opinion 



4040 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

from prominent leaders of science and education, for cable transmission to 
Moscow, on the following subjects : 

1. Achievements of the U. S. S. R. in economic development ; 

2. The peace policy of the Soviet Union. 

I hope that you will find your way clear of favoring us with a statement 
on this matter, and thanking you in anticipation of your cooperation, I am 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] V. Prosin, 
Chief Economist, Amtorg Trading Corporation. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify these documents? 

Mr. Mandel. These are invitations to celebrate the adoption of the 
new Soviet constitution issued by the Ambassador of the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics, and they are dated in the different years, 
and they cover various celebrations at the Soviet Embassy. I can 
give each one separately. 

Mr. Morris. I do not think it is necessary. I would not like to take 
that much time. There are nine invitations to various official Soviet 
functions which purport to be invitations to the witness Mr. Field, 
and I would like to institute a line of questions to the witness on that 
particular subject if he would be willing to answer. 

(Documents handed to Mr. Field.) 

Senator O'Conor, All right, Mr. Morris, will you proceed? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, are you prepared to explain to us the cir- 
cumstances surrounding your receiving these invitations? 

Mr. Field. I imagine that I have no control over the mail that I 
receive. However those things came to me, I assume, through the 
mail. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember receiving these ? 

Mr. Field. No ; I don't remember it. 

Mr. Morris. How many of these functions did you attend? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morris, on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Michael Gromov ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Mr. Andrei Yumashev ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the questioning along 
the line of this particular subject be discontinued on the ground that 
we are not going to get any information from this particular witness. 

Will you take into the record nine such invitations ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes; they will be admitted into the record. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 619" and 
are as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 619 

The Charge d'Affaires 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

and Mrs. Oumansky 

request the pleasure of your company 

at a reception in honor of 

Michael Gromov, Andrei Yumashev, and Sergei Danilin 

on Tuesday evening the twenty-seventh of July 

at nine o'clock 

at the Embassy 

Summer dress or black tie 1937 

Please present this card at the door R. s. v. p. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4041 

To Celebrate the Adoption of the New Soviet Constitution 

The Consul General 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

and Mrs. Arens 

request the honor of the company of 

Mr. Frederick V. Field (penned in) 

at a reception 

Tuesday evening, the fifteenth of December 

at nine o'clock 

at the Consulate 

1936 
^- s. V. p. Please present this card at the door 



(Pencilled) Regret 
To Celebrate the Adoption of the New Soviet Constitution 

The Ambassador 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

and Mrs. Troyanovsky 

request the honor of the company of 

Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Field (penned in) 

at a reception 

Thursday evening the tenth of December 

at nine o'clock 

at the Embassy 

1936 
^- s. V. p. Please present this card at the door 



The Consul General 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

requests the honor of the company of 

Mr. Frederick V. Field (penned in) 

at (penned in) luncheon 

on (penned in) Friday, June fifth 

at (penned in) one o'clock 

at the Consulate General 

Seven East Sixty-first Street 
R.s.v.p. 1945 



(Pencilled) Accept 
The Consul General 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

and Mrs. Tolokonski 

request the honor of the company of 

Mr. and Mrs. Frederick V. Fields (penned in) 

at a reception 

on the occasion of the Anniversary of the October Revolution 

on Wednesday, November Seventh 

between 4 and 6 : 30 o'clock 

at the Consulate General 

7 East 61st Street 

R.s.v.p. 1942 



4042 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

(Penned in) Farewell to Mr. and Mrs. Neymann. 
(Pencilled) Accepted 

The Consul General 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

and Mrs. Arens 

request the pleasure of the company of 

Mr. Frederick Field (penned in) 

at (penned in) a tea 

on Monday, September thirtieth (penned in) 

at (penned in) five to seven o'clock 

at the Consulate General 

Seven East Sixty First Street 

R.s.v.p. 1940 

Messrs. Michael Gromov, Andrei Yumashev 

and Sergei Danllin will give the first account 

of their flight from Moscow to San Jacinto, California, 

across the North Pole 



To Celebrate the Twentieth Anniversary 
of the Great October Socialist Revolution 

The Acting Consul General 

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

and Mrs. Borovoy 

request the honor of the company of 

(Penned in) Mr. Frederick V. Field 

at a reception 

on Saturday, November the sixth 

from five until seven o'clock 

at the Consulate General 

Seven East Sixty-first Street 

R. s. V. p. Please present this card at the door 

1948 



(Penned in) Accept 

The Consul General 

of the U. S. S. R. and Mrs. Tt)lokonski 

and Mr. Peter A. Bogdanov 

Chairman of the Board, Amtorg Trading Corporation 

request the honor of the company of 

Mr. and Mrs. Frederick V. Field (penned in) 

at a reception and showing of the film 

Chelyuskin 

on (penned in) Thursday, September twenty-seventh 

at (penned in) eight-thirty o'clock p. m. 

at the Consulate General 

7 East 61st Street 

R. S. V. P. 1945 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify that letter, Mr. Mandel? 
Mr. Mandel. This is a carbon copy of a letter taken from the files 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations dated July 23, 193T, addressed to 



i 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4043 

the Honorable C. Oumansky, charge d'affaires of the U. S. S. R., Wash- 
ington, D. C, witli the typed signature of Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, I otfer you this letter and ask you if you 
can recall having sent that to Mr. Oumansky, 

Senator O'Conor. That is, the original of which that is a carbon. 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer, Mr. Morris, on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the fact it is identified 
by Mr. Mandel as a document taken from the files and purporting to 
be signed by Frederick V. Field, will you accept it into the record? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes; it is admitted under those circumstances. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 620" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 620 

July 23, 1937. 
The Honorable C. Oumansky, 

Charge d' Affaires of the V. S. 8. R., Washington, D. C. 

Deae Mr. Oumansky : I am exceedingly sorry that I shall not be able to attend 
the reception you are giving in honor of the three Soviet fliers. It is imix)ssible 
for me to get to Washington at that time. You can imagine how greatly pleased 
my colleagues and I have been over the success of the two recent flights. 
Sincerely yours, 

Fkedekick v. F1EI.D. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify that letter please ? 

Mr. Mandel. I have here an original memorandum dated March 22, 
1939, from E. C. C. with penciled notes in the corner marked "E. C. C." 
and "Fred." 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, can you recall having received that letter 
from Mr. Carter ? [Handing to witness.] 

Mr. Field. I don't remember, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that for us, Mr. Field, please? 

Mr. Field (reading) : 

Exhibit No. 621 

F. V. F. from E. C. C. March 22, 1939. 

I assume that Mr. Oumansky sends regularly to you or Mrs. Barnes copies 
of speeches such as those recently made by Stalin and Molotov and communiques 
such as the text of the note from Litvinov to the German Ambassador. If, how- 
ever, he is not doing so, I would be glad to include you in my circulation of 
these. 

( Penciled note : ) E. C. C. : Yes ; he usually does include us. Fred. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you receive that into the record? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes; it will be admitted for the record. Of 
course the witness does not himself identify it. 

Mr. Morris. I understand. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 621" and was 
read in full.) 

Mr. Morris. Can you recall, Mr. Field, whether or not it was the 
regular practice of Mr. Oumansky to send regularly to you or to Mrs. 
Barnes copies of speeches made such as those recently made by Stalin 
and Molotov ? 

Mr. Field. Excuse me a moment. 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, indeed. 

(Mr. Field confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Field. I have no recollection of that, Mr. Morris. 



4044 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will yon identify that letter, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is an original letter on the letterhead of the 
American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, dated January 9, 
1939, addressed to Mr. Edward C. Carter, New York office, and 
signed "Frederick V. Field." 

Mr. Morris. Can you recall having sent that letter, Mr. Field? 
[Handing to witness.] 

Mr. Field. It seems to be my signature, Mr. Morris, but I do 
not have a personal recollection of correspondence that far back. 

Mr. Morris. Or the meeting mentioned in the correspondence ? 

Mr. Field. I don't recall it. 

Mr. Morris. Mir. Chairman, may that go into the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes ; it will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 622" and is as 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 622 

Officers : Carl L. Alf3berg, Chairman ; Wallace M. Alexander, Vice Chairman ; Miss Ada 
Comstock, Vice Chairman ; Philip C. Jessup, Vice Chairman ; Benjamin H. Kizer, Vice 
Chairman ; Ray Lyman Wilbur, Vice Chairman ; Frederick V. Field, Secretary ; Charles 
J. Rhoads, Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austern, Assistant Treasurer 

ameeican council 
Institute of Pacific Relations 

1795 California Street, San Francisco; Telephone: Tuxedo 3114; 129 East 52nd Street, 
New York City ; Telephone : PLaza 3-4700. Cable : Inparel 

New Yojjk City, January 9, 1939. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

New York Office. 
Dear Mr. Cakteb : This is to thank you for your note of January 7th and to say 
that I shall be very glad to lunch with you at the Century Club on Wednesday at 
one to meet Plopkin and Mr. Oumansky. 
■Sincerely yours, 

[s] Fred, 

Fredebick v. Field. 
f/g 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify that letter, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a letter from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations addressed to F. V. Field, Esq., with the 
signature of E. C. Carter dated December 31, 1939. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, do you recognize that letter as a letter sent 
to you by Mr, Carter? [Handing witness.] 

Mr. Field. I don't remember that letter, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, would you receive that into the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. It will be admitted as a part of the records of 
the IPR. That is a part of the records of the IPR? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 623" and is as 
follows :) 

Exhibit No. 623 

129 East Fifty-Second Street, 

Nexo York, December 31, 1939. 
F. V. Field, Esq. 

Dear Fred : Last night at a workers meeting I described the need of the 
American Council. Ten gifts of one dollar each were immediately made. They 
were made on condition that they be anonymous. Here are the ten gifts. Will 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4045 

you at your convenience request the Treasurer to make out ten receipts each 
bearing the designation anonymous. 
Sincerely yours, 

E. C. Cartek. 
12/30/39. (Not clear) B. M. #3994 to #4003. 
I will pass on the receipts to their destinations. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, in this letter Mr. Carter sent to you : 

Deae Fred : Last night at a workers meeting I described the need of the 
American council. Ten gifts of $1 each were immediately made. 

Do you know what the reference there is to the workers' meeting 
the night before? 

Mr. Field. No ; I don't know, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. You could not give us any information ? 

Mr. Field. I am afraid not. 

Mr. Morris. That is December 31, 1939. 

Mr. Field. It doesn't recall anything specific to my mind. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have here from the files of the Insti- 
tute of Pacific Relations what purports to be a memorandum prepared 
by Mr. Field concerning his application for a commission with the 
United States Army. I would like Mr. Mandel to identify that as a 
letter taken from the files of the institute. 

Mr. Mandel. This is a memorandum taken from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations headed "Frederick V. Field: Events 
Leading Up to Disapproval of My Application for United States 
Army Commission and for United States Civil-Service Appointment." 
It is undated and unsigned. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, I wonder if you would look at that and tell 
us if you can recall having written that. 

Mr. Field. May I have time to read this, please, sir? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, certainly. 

(Mr. Field consults document.) 

Senator O'Conor. The witness has inspected the paper, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that for us, please, Mr. Field ? 

Mr. Field. Do you want me to read it aloud? 

Mr. Morris. Would you, please ? 

Mr. Field (reading) : 

Exhibit No. 624 

Frederick V. Field : Events Leading Up to Disapproval of My Application 
FOB United States Army Commission and for United States Civil Service 
Appointment 

1. During December 1941 I made numerous inquiries regarding places where 
a far eastern specialist could be useful in the war effort. Early in January I 
had a long interview with Colonel Sharp of the Army Intelligence office in New 
York City. During this interview (as in all subsequent interviews) I brought 
me the question of my having been associated with the American Peace Mobiliza- 
tion and the consequent unfavorable report which the FBI would unquestionably 
give on me. Colonel Sharp assured me that appointments for specialist jobs were 
made on a basis of "common sense," not political prejudice. 

Colonel Sharp informed me that he did not at that time have a staff appoint- 
ment to offer me, but that if I were willing to work for a few weeks on a volun- 
teer basis he would later recommend me for an official position provided the 
arrangement had by then turned out to be mutually satisfactory. I accepted 
this offer, and Colonel Sharp sent my credentials on to Washington for approval 
as a volunteer. 

2. It appears that these credentials came to the attention of another branch 
of the Army, for a few days later Capt. Malcolm W. Moss, of the Army Air Corps 

88348— 52— pt. 12 2 



4046 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Intelligence, asked me if I would be interested in a position as Far East specialist 
in Air Intelligence. The job descril^ed was one of extraordinary interest to me, 
and I told Captain Moss of my eagerness for an ofBcial appointment. He asked 
me to go to Washington for further interviews. 

My first interview with Captain Moss took place on January 5 or 6. 

I could insert for the record here, on the basis of my recollection, 
this would have been January of 1942. 

On January 8 I had interviews in Washington with other officers of the Air 
Intelligence: Maj. William Ball, chief of the particular section in which I was 
to work; Captain Barr, administrative officer of that section, and a number of 
officers and civilians engaged in research on other geographical divisions. 

I was accepted by the officers of that section, Major Ball himself taking me 
around to the personnel division to start the process of securing a commission 
as a captain. Captain Moss took me to the division in charge of handling 
civilian appointments. In their opinion a civilian appointment could be put 
tlirough much quicker than the commission, which would take a month or two, 
and as they were in a hurry for me to start work they wished me to apply for 
a temporary civilian appointment pending the commission. 

3. During the next few days I filled out all the questionnaires, application 
forms, etc., for both the commission and civilian appointment (the latter being 
described as "economic analyst, P-4, $3,800 per annum"). On January 10 I 
took my Army physical examination at 90 Church Street, New York City. 

4. On Tuesday, February 10, Captain Moss telephoned me from Washington 
to say that he regretted to inform me that the applications for both civilian and 
military appointments had been disapproved in "higher quarters." He siiggested 
that I try to locate the cause and place of the disapproval and see if I could do 
anything to reverse it. In that telephone call, as well as in conversation in 
Washington 3 days later, he informed me that he was not authorized to tell me 
the reasons for the disapproval ; that, as a matter of fact, liis section knew very 
little about it. I have been unable to get any further information myself. 

5. Finally, a brief word as to the job itself. It is concerned with developing 
a theory for bombing Far Eastern objectives. My part of the job would be 
largely economic-industrial research designed to determine key objectives in 
the Japanese economy. 

Frederick V. Field. 16 West Twelfth Street, New York City 

(Gramercy 7-8265) 

Born : April 14, 190-3, New York City 
Education : 

Hotchkiss, 1922 
Harvard A. B., 1927 

London School of Economics and Political Science, 1927-28 
Activities : 

Staff of Institute of Pacific Relations, 1928-40 

Secretary-treasurer, American Cooperating Committee for Chinese Mass 

Education Movement, 1928 to date 
Served as secretary to Chinese Mass Education Movement, director. Dr. 

Y. C. James Yen, during his tour of United States, 1928-29 
Assistant to Edward C. Carter, 1928-35 
Member, Economic Mission to Far East (Hon. Cameron Forbes, chairman) 

1935 
Secretary, American Council Institute of Pacific Relations, 1935-40; trustee 

and member, executive committee, 1935 to date. 
Chairman, editorial board, Amerasia (monthly journal on Far East)- 1987 

to date 
Executive secretary, American Peace Mobilization, September 1940 to July 

1941 
Attended international conferences of Institute of Pacific Relations as 

follows: Kyoto. 1929; Shanghai, 1931; BanfC, 1933; Yosemite, 1936, Vir- 
ginia Beach, 1939 
Travel in Far East : 

Trans-Siberian Railway to Vladivostok, 1929 

Japan, September through November, 1929 

Travel through Luzon, P. I., December through February 1929-30 

Hongkong, Canton, Pakhoi, Tongking, Yunnan, March-April 1930 



Institute of pacific relations 4047 

Shanghai, Nanking, Hangchow, June 1930 

Tientsin, Peiping, Paotingfu, July-Septemer 1930 

Returned to Far East (Japan, Manchuria, Peiping, Shanghai) for 4 months 

in 1931 
Worlied in Honolulu, winter 1932-83 
Five months in London, ^YOrliing at Royal Institute of International Affairs, 

winter 1933-34 
Returned to Japan and China as member American Economic Mission in 

1935 
Author : 

American Participation in the China Consortiums (University of Chicago 

Press, 1932) 
Economic Handbook of the Pacific Area (Doubleday-Doran, 1935) 
General editor, Economic Survey of the Pacific Area, 1939-^2 
Numerous articles in Far Eastern Survey, Asia, Amerasia, Pacific Affairs, 

Current History, etc. 
Miscellaneous : 

Married, three children 

Member, Century Association, Harvard Club, Council on Foreign Relations, 

Public Affairs Committee 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Field, I think we have covered 
the substance. May it go into the record? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes ; it may be admitted into the record in toto. 

Mr. Morris. That is right. 

Senator O'Conor. Unless, of course, the witness feels there is any- 
thing important that in fairness to himself ought to be mentioned. 

Mr. Field. I think almost all of it has been testified to previously, 
sir. 

Senator O'Conor. All right. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 624" and was 
read in full.) 

Mr. Morris. All the circumstances? 

Mr. Field. I say most of it. In general, I think exactly the same 
picture was presented in the last session. 

Mr. Morris. We have an executive session here with Colonel 
Church. In connection with this, Colonel Church of the Army had 
sent a man over here and we were going to have him read this into 
the record, but he seems to have gone. Suppose we have another 
session on that. 

Senator O'Conor. Very well. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, did you know Vladimir Romm? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that 
to do so might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Morris. He was the representative of the Soviet Council at 
an IPR Council in the United States ; was he not ? 

Mr, Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Senator O'Conor. Just before you take up a new subject, have 
you concluded the line of questioning on the commission? 

Mr. Morris. Yes, unless there is something else. 

Senator O'Conor. INlr. Field, in the period which has intervened 
since you were asked about the application for the commission and 
the endorsement of others in your behalf, is there anything that you 
can add to what you previously testified to ? 

Mr. Field. No, sir; I think not. I reread the record of my testi- 
mony in open session the other day, and I don't think I have any 
amendments to it. 

Senator O'Conor. At that time I think you said that 



4048 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. There are names in liere which I couldn't then recall 
and I am glad to testify to as far as I can recollect as to the accuracy 
of those names. I think those are the people that I saw. 

Senator O'Conor. It occurred to me that possibly, in the exchange 
of correspondence or communications or in the questioning of per- 
sons mentioned, you might have thought of something else that would 
bear upon the subject-matter. 

Mr. Field. I have had no opportunity to read the proceedings of 
your committee since I last appeared except my own. 

Senator O'Conor. In that testimony there was mentioned the name 
of Lauchlin Currie, you recall. 

Mr. Field. Yes. 

Senator O'Conor. And also the name of Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Field. Yes ; I do. 

Senator O'Conor. In connection with either of those parties, is there 
anything further that has occurred to you, or anything that might be 
added by way of additional information as to their interest or their 
activities in regard to the proposed application ? 

Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, as I recall the gist of my testimony at 
that time, this is what I would repeat again : It was that with respect 
to Mr. Lattimore my recollection was that I probably did go to him 
to act for me. It was likely that I did under the circumstances. With 
respect to Mr. Currie, I was then, and I am now, almost certain that I 
did not go to him, but I conceded the possibility that some other friend 
of mine might have involved him indirectly. 

That is as concrete as I could possibly be on this question. 

Senator O'Conor. I see. There is no other bit of information that 
you could give that might help us ? 

Mr. Field. No ; I have no other information on that. 

Senator O'Conor. Just one question further before you leave this. 
Have you concluded the questions with regard to the contributions 
made in the name of Mr. Field for the time being? 

Mr. Morris. They may come up again. 

Senator O'Conor. There was one question about it. You previously 
have declined to respond to questions, and what I am about to ask is 
of course not for the purpose of asking you to reopen that except on 
another angle of it. Apart from the question of fact of whether you 
did make such contributions, I would like to ask you whether you 
made any request of the Internal Revenue for exemption for any con- 
tributions made to any of the organizations or parties referred to in 
the previous questions? 

Mr. Field. I would answer you, sir, if I may, in a veiy limited 
fashion, that in previous sessions my contributions to the Institute of 
Pacific Relations have been raised, and I acknowledged such contribu- 
tions, and I did claim and was granted the usual exemption on those 
contributions. 

With respect to the others I would have to decline as I did pre- 
viously. 

Senator O'Conor. I would like to ask the question with respect to 
the organizations mentioned by Mr. Morris in the previous questions. 

Mr. Field. At today's session ? 

Senator O'Conor. At today's session, as to whether or not you made 
a request of the Treasury of the United States, or the Bureau of In- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4049 

ternal Revenue for exemption of any contributions made to any of 
those organizations or parties. 

Mr. Field. May I consult my counsel ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, indeed. 

(Mr. Field confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Field. Sir, without acknowledging such contributions or ad- 
mitting them, I might state that I did not make such application. 

Senator O'Conor. That is all I wanted to know. I was not attack- 
ing the fact of a contribution, but only as to anything on your part 
in connection with the Treasury Department. 

Mr. Morris. You said a while ago that you had not seen the tran- 
script of our open hearings ? 

Mr. Field. Except for my own testimony. That is the only one I 
have read. 

Mr. Morris. The committee has been sending you, as it sends all 
witnesses, Mr. Field, one or I think maybe two copies of all transcripts 
that are published. You have not been getting those? 

Mr. Field. I have not been receiving my mail regularly because I 
have been in prison until recently. 

Mr. Morris. You had access to them, though? 

Mr. Field. I had access to nothing whatsoever. I haven't caught 
up. I don't know if these things are in my mail. I haven't run into 
them since I have been back. 

Mr. Morris. They would be sent to you at the address you gave the 
reporter. 

Mr. Field. I suppose so. I haven't run into them. I do have this 
one which contains my own testimony, but I have only read my own 
testimony. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, it is the practice of the committee to 
send to all witnesses, I believe, two copies of all public testimony, so 
]\Ir. Field should have that. At least it has been sent to him at his 
home address. 

Will you identify that last letter, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. I have here a handwritten note from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations on the stationery of the Cunard-Wliite 
Star liner Queen Mary dated November 5, 1936. In the upper right- 
hand corner is written "Foreign Department, Yzvestia Moscow." It 
is addressed to "Dear Mr. Field" and signed "V. Romm." 

Mr. Morris. Can you recall having received that letter? [Handing 
to witness.] 

Mr. Field. I have no recollection of it, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you read that letter ? 

Mr. Mandel (reading) : 

Exhibit No. 625 

Dear Me. Field : I am very sorry I missed you when I left, but I hope we will 
meet again somewhere. It has been very pleasant to know you and to cooperate 
with you on some problems. 

My plans are not very certain as my paper wants me to go to London. I will 
see clearer when I am in Moscow, as I feel a little worn-out for the moment and 
need a rest. 

Very truly yours, 

V. Romm. 

Mr. Field. May I ask whether there is a date on that letter? 
Mr. Mandel. November 5, 1936. 



4050 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris, Did Mr. Komm get the rest- he mentioned there, Mr. 
Field? 

Mr. Field. I am afraid I can't help you out on that. 

Mr. Morris. What do you mean by that, Mr. Field? Is it that you 
do not know or you refuse to ? 

Mr. Field. I don't know. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know what happened to Mr. Romm? 

Mr. Field. I have no idea. 

Mr. Morris. He was purged, was he not ? 

Mr. Field. I don't know. 

Mr. Morris, You don't know first-hand? 

Mr. Field. I don't really know second-hand. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember reading anything about Mr. Romm ? 

Mr. Field. I don't remember anything specific. I have a general 
impression that he was one of the people who got into trouble there, 
and what happened to him I haven't the slightest idea or never heard. 

Mr. Morris. Would you receive that into the record? 

Senator O'Coxor. Yes; it will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. 625" and was 
read in full.) 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, the witness has declined to answer in 
connection with the name of Herbert Biberman. I have here a tele- 
gram and an exchange of correspondence, or, rather, it is not an ex- 
change of correspondence, but one is a telegram from Herbert Biber- 
man to Edward C. Carter and the other is a telegram from the witness, 
Frederick Field, to Edward C. Carter, and they seem to be related 
each with the other. 

Mr. Mandel, will you identify those letters, please? 

Mr. Mandel. I have here two telegrams from the files of the Insti- 
tute of Pacific Relations. One is addressed to Edward C. Carter, 
dated "September 3, 1940," signed "Herbert Biberman," and the other 
is addressed to Edward C. Carter, dated "September 3, 1940," signed 
"Fred." 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Morris, what is the source of those? 

Mr. Mandel. They both come from the files of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. The one telegram from Herbert Biberman, addressed 
to Edward C. Carter on September 3, 1910, says : 

Exhibit No. 626 

Beg you to make it easy for Fred Field to accept new position with American 
Peace Mobilization. Warmest personal regards. 

It is signed "Herbert Biberman." 

The other telegram, signed "Fred," reads : 

Have accepted job but sincerely trust no publicity. Going Washington today 
address Washington Hotel. Hope see you New York, Thursday. 

Mr. Field, will you look at those two telegrams and answer whether 
the second telegram was in fact sent by you ? [Handing to witness.] 

(Mr. Field confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Field. Mr. Morris. I decline to answer that question on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Morris. As to whether or not this telegram was sent by you ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4051 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, the first telegram is the telegram from 
Biberman to Carter but it relates to the second telegram. 1 was won- 
dering if you will, under the circumstances, accept both of those into 
the record. 

Senator O'Conor. Well, as to the probative force of it, I do not 
think it is quite clear. Certainly there is nothing as yet bearing on 
the witness, but as coming from the records of the Institute of Pacific 
Relations it will be admitted to that extent. 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 626'' and 
was read in full.) 

Mr. Morris. I would like, ordinarily, Mr. Chairman, since there is 
an indication here that Mr. Biberman was influential or instrumental 
in having Mr. Field accept the position with the American Peace 
Mobilization, to institute a series of questions on that, but if Mr. Field 
declines to answer anything about Mr. Biberman, I think we have to 
discontinue that. 

Senator O'Conor. All right, you may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Is that correct, that you will not answer any questions 
in connection with Mr. Biberman ? 

Mr. Field. I have already claimed the privilege with respect to 
Mr. Biberman. 

Senator O'Conor. You are entitled to know what the questions are, 
if 3'ou so desire. 

Mr. Field. I don't like to make a blanket statement, but I have so 
far used the privilege. 

Mr. Morris. Was Mr. Biberman instrumental in causing you to take 
a position with the American Peace Mobilization? 

Mr. Field. I do decline to answer that question, Mr, Morris, on the 
same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give us the circumstances surrounding what- 
ever effort Mr. Biberman did make to have you go to the American 
Peace Mobilization ? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question, Mr. Morris, on 
the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, will you tell us your recollection of what 
the people in the Institute of Pacific Relations did when it became 
known to them that you were going to accept a position with the 
American Peace Mobilization ? I mean, presenting to the world and 
to the council the news of your being a member of the American Peace 
Mobilization Dresented a Droblem to them, did it not ? 

Mr. Field. May I have a moment, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, indeed. 

(Mr. Field confers with his comisel.) 

Mr. Field. Mr. Morris, what I am looking for is the record which 
is appended to the proceedings of my previous appearance here which 
contains certain statements relating to the question you have just 
asked. 

Mr. Morris. Yes. And, Mr. Field, in that connection here is a 
letter apparently from Mr. Jessup to Mr. Carter which discusses a 
statement you may have made at that time. That may aid you in 
your recollection. [Handing to witness.] 

Mr. Field. ]Mr. Morris, I feel that the records with respect to this 
matter have already been made public, and I have read them, and it 
seems to me that they do describe the circumstances 



4052 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. This one is not in the record yet, Mr. Field, the one 
I handed you. This is a letter from Philip Jessup to Edward C. 
Carter and it says : 

I don't really think we can use Fred's statement as it is, much as I would 
be glad to help him with his cause. How about a combination of the two, 
something like this. 

Apparently that indicates that you did make a statement for the 
institute, that you suggested that they release, and apparently Mr. 
Jessup didn't like that one and wanted to make a compromise on that. 
1 was wondering whether you could give us any testimony along 
those lines ? 

Mr. Field. I cannot give you any testimony as to what Mr. Jessup 
did or what he wrote Mr. Carter, no, Mr. Morris. 

I do agree that the circumstances, insofar as I know them with 
respect to this question, are indicated in these documents that have 
been made public already and are appended to my own appearance 
here at page 122 and I guess 123, too. 

Mr. Morris. So you can give no testimony bearing on this letter? 

Mr. Field. No, I cannot. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have here the difficulty of whether 
or not we should accept this into the record at this time or whether we 
should have Mr. Jessup or Mr. Carter acknowledge the authenticity 
of it. 

Senator O'Conor. Of course I do not think the groundwork has 
been laid sufficiently for its introduction at this time. 

Mr. Morris. If the witness had recalled that he had ever seen it, 
it might be. So Mr. Chairman, may this be submitted to the at- 
torney for Mr. Carter who has appeared before this committee and 
has indicated that he would acknowledge the authenticity of things 
addressed to Mr. Carter or written by Mr. Carter together with Mr. 
Holland and other witnesses? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, that would be in order, but its introduction 
at this time is not. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, in that connection, I offer you this next 
letter and ask you if that recalls any particular episode to you? 
[Handing to witness.] 

Mr. Field. Mr. Morris, I have claimed the privilege with respect 
to questions related to the American Peace Mobilization, and I must 
continue to do so. I have, however, just a moment ago endeavored 
to go as far as I felt I could in discussing surrounding circumstances. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this letter, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is an original letter on the letterhead of the 
American Peace Mobilization, lllG Vermont Avenue NW., Wash- 
ington, D. C, dated December 19, 1940, addressed to Edward C. 
Carter, Institute of Pacific Eelations, and signed "Fred" with the 
typed signature of Frederick V. Field. The document is taken from 
the files of the Institute of Pacific Eelations. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember having written that article? 

Mr. Field. No, I have no recollection. 

Senator O'Conor. That letter ? 

Mr. Field. I haven't heard the letter, I don't know. 

Mr. Morris. I showed it to you a minute ago. [Handing to wit- 
ness.] 

Mr. Field. I have already claimed the privilege on this. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4053 

Mr. INIoRRis. Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances, will you re- 
ceive that into the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, it will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 627" and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 627 

Rev. John B. Thompson, Chairman ; Frederick V. Field, Executive Secretary ; Marion 

Briggs, Administrative Secretary 

American Peace Mobilization 

1116 Vermont Avenue NW. Washington, D. C. Republic 7965 

December 19, 1940. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East 52nd Street, Neio York, N. Y. 

Dear Mr. Carter : Thank you for seuding me the copy of your December 14th 
letter to Phil Jessup in which you suggest that ways should be found for using 
his ten-point program presented at the end of our Princeton discussion. Without 
at the moment making any suggestions as to how the document can be used, I 
should like to make two comments regarding my own degree of support of the 
program outlined. 

One of the points calls for an immediate armistice between China and Japan. 
I gathered from the few remarks that were made a number of those present at 
Princeton interpreted this as meaning that a status quo arrangement would be 
made, with the Japanese armies and otlier officials remaining in their present 
positions in occupied China pending the negotiations of a permanent arrange- 
ment. I would not agree to this. The program at this point would have my 
support only if it specifically called for an armistice based on a complete with- 
drawal of Japane>^e troops and other pressure groups from China, including 
IManchuria. Or, if you prefer, I would base the terms of the armistice with respect 
to the degree of Japanese withdrawal on whatever arrangement was acceptable 
to the Chinese government. 

The second point has to do with the part of Jessup's program calling for imme- 
diate steps in the direction of liberating the colonial possessions in Eastern Asia. 
To have my support this point would have to be made more specific so as to 
include certain conditions regarding time, rate of liberation, circumstance under 
which the liberation would take place, etc. I should also like it to be perfectly 
clear whether the phrase "colonies" used in Jessup's recommendations includes 
Korea and Formosa, and particularly whether it included Singapore, Hongkong, 
Guam, Samoa, and other military outposts. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Fred, 

Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Hilda Austern ? 

Mr. Field. Yes; I do know her. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Nat Bretholtz ? 

Mr. Field. Yes ; I do. 

Mr. Morris. Did you, in the summer of 1938, turn over your apart- 
ment to the use of Mr. and JNIrs. Nat Bretholtz — that is, in 1938 ? 

Mr. Field. Yes. What was the address of my apartment ? Do you 
remember ? 

( Document handed to M. Field. ) 

M. Field. I apparently did ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Is that Hilda Austern ? 

Mr. Field. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember writing this letter to Mr. Gibbs? 

Mr. Field. I haven't read it, but I am perfectly willing to acknowl- 
edge the likelihood. That apparently is my letter. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that letter, Mr. Field? 

Mr. Field (reading) : 



4054 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 628 

(Attention Mr. Gibbs.) 

24 West 55th Street, 

lieio York, N. Y. 
Dear Mr. Gibbs : I have invited friends — • 

This is written from San Francisco, June 20, 1938 — 

to occupy my apartment No. 11-F during the summer, as I shall unfortunately 
have to remain in San Francisco. I have already given them a key to the apart- 
ment, and I am sending them a copy of this letter. 
Sincerely yours, 



Mr. Morris. Mrs. Nat Bretholtz is Hilda Austern ? 

Mr. Field. She was. 

Mr. Morris. She was an official of the IPR, was she not? 

Mr. Field. She was on the staff. 

Mr. Morris. She was treasurer or assistant treasurer? 

Mr. Field. Assistant treasurer. She was the bookkeeper. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify that letter? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a carbon copy from the files of 
the Institute of Pacific Relations, dated June 20, 1948, air mail, 
addressed "Attention Mr. Gibbs," 24 West Fifty- fifth Street, New 
York, N. Y., with the typed signature of Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Will you receive that into the record? 

Senator O'Conor. It will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 628" and was 
read in full.) 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify that letter, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is an original of a memorandum from the files 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations dated December 3, 1936, headed 
"FVF fi-om ECC." 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, can you tell us what your dealings have been 
with the following people : Colonel Stimson, Fred Osborn, Russell 
Leffingwell, Frank McCoy? You will testify about those people, will 
you not ? 

Mr. Field. I believe ; yes ; I think — I would like to see the list again. 

Colonel Stimson is obviously the former Secretary of State. 

Mr. Morris. I wonder if you would read that whole letter for us. 

Mr. Field (reading) : 

Exhibit No. 629 
FVF from ECC. 

This is addressed to me, apparent l}- a memorandum, not a letter. 

Mr. Morris. That is right. 

Mr. Field. It is dated December 3, 1936 [reading] : 

Herewith I return Chamberlain's letter. IMy recommendations are as follows : 

1. That yon refrain from pressing Chamberlain. 

2. That we drop the idea at this time of roping in Colonel Stimson, but that 
at the right time, if he has not already contributed, you make a financial appeal 
to him. 

3. That in the last fortnight of December, either at your instance or mine, I 
have a long talk with Fred Osb(n'n to follow up your initial approach. Please 
let me know which of us should take the initiative. 

4. That if we get Osborn moving along a little further we reconsider the 
possibility of a Leffingwell, McCoy, Osborn meeting with or without Stimson. 
It might be better to have Baker present instead of Stimson. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4055 

Mr. Chairman, tliis obviously is a memorandum referring to per- 
sistent efforts at that time to raise funds for the organization and 
refers to one of these plots that are concocted in an office to get certain 
people together and get contributions from them. 

Mr. Morris. Does it not indicate to you that you were trying to 
influence their political thinking? 

Mr. Field. It most certainly does not. This is most obviously a 
letter to endeavor to rope Colonel Stimson in, to make a financial ap- 
peal to him. 

Mr, Morris. Will you read the next sentence, please ? 

Mr. Field (reading) : 

That in the last fortnight of December, either at your instance or mine, I have 
a long talk with Fred Osborn to follow up your initial approach. 

Mr. Morris. Continue, please. 
Mr. Field (reading) : 

Please let me know which of us should take the initiative. 

Mr. Morris. Continue, please. 
Mr. Field (reading) : 

That if we get 0.sl)orn moving along a little further we reconsider the possibil- 
ity of a Leffingwell, McCoy, Osborn meeting with or without Stimson. It might 
be better to have Baker present instead of Stimson. 

Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony that that is in connection with the 
fund-raising and not with the 

Mr. Field. Very clearly and obviously, and I would like to make 
that clearer to your original question, what my relations to those men 
were. Mr. Leffingwell is or was a partner in J. P. Morgan. I believe 
at the time he was chairman. 

Mr. Morris. He is chairman of the board now. 

Mr. Field. I think he is now chairman of the board. And McCoy 
is General McCoy, obviously. Fred Osborn was formerly a member, 
American member, of the U. N. Atomic Commission. I had known 
Mr. Osborn because he is related to me, and I approached him to try 
and get his interest in the institute. General McCoy, I had known 
for a long time because of his own responsibilities in the Far East and 
his membership in the League of Nations mission that went to Man- 
churia, the 'name of which escapes me at the moment. He was the 
American member of that. 

I don't believe I knew Mr. Leffingwell myself, and I don't believe I 
ever met Mr. Stimson except, perhaps, at some public gathering. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. Mr. Chairman, will that memorandum be received into 
the record? 

Senator O'Coxor. Yes ; that will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 629" and was 
read in full.) 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, was it a practice of yours when you were 
Secretary of the Institute of Pacific Relations to send IPR materiaj 
to people high in Government ? 

Mr. Field. Yes ; it was. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the purpose of that practice? 

Mr. Field. It was inherent in the purpose of the organization it- 
self, as a research and educational body which tried to spread its find- 
ings as widely among the American people as it could, and did so as 



4056 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

far as it was able in all groups, all kinds of levels of the American 
population. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify these three letters. 

Mr. Makdfx. These are photostats of documents from the files of 
the Institute of Pacific Relations. First we have a photostat of a, 
carbon cojiy of a letter dated October 27, 1938, addressed to Mr. Henry 
Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury Department, Washington, 
D. C, with the typed signature of Frederick V. Field. 

Next we have a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter dated October 
27, 1938, addressed to Hon. J. C. Grew, with the typed signature of 
Frederick V. Field. 

Then we have a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter dated October 
27, 1938, addressed to Hon. Nelson T. Johnson, with the typed signa- 
ture of Frederick V. Field. In each case the title of secretary is below 
the name of Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, can you remember sending those three let- 
ters? [Handing to witness.] 

Mr. Field. Mr. Morris, I don't recall. I don't have a real recol- 
lection of any correspondence dating that far back. It seems to me 
clear that these are letters, and I certainly would acknowledge that 
they are the kind of letters that I most likely sent out, and these prob- 
ably were or are copies of such letters. 

Mr. Morris. And it was in line with the practice of sending, in 
this case, reports to high officials in the United States Government. 

Mr. Field. And all others. It is quite clear a selection here has 
been made to pick out certain Government officials. You will find 
similar letters in the files to non-Government officials. 

Mr. Morris. Does this represent a selection, or were these three 
letters found together, Mr. Mandel ? Do you recall ? 

Mr. Mandel. These were found together. You will notice they 
are all of the same date. It is evidently a circular letter that was sent 
to the three individuals, and perhaps others. 

Mr. Morris. But that was not a selection on 3^our part from the 
group ? 

Mr. Mandel. No ; it was not a selection on our part. 

Mr. Morris. Ma}^ these go into the record? 

Senator O'Conor. They will be received. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit No, 630" and 
are as follows:) 

( Pencilled : ) Farley-Amco. Far Eastern Policy 
New York, N. Y., October 27, 1938. 
Mr. Henry Morgenthau, 

Secret aril of the Treasury Department, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Morgenthau : We are sending: you a copy of "American Far Eastern 
Policy and the Sino-Japanese War," a report of the seven discussion conferences 
held under the auspices of the American Council in the spring of 1938. A 
similar series of meetings is to be held during the winter on "The United States 
and the Post-War Situation in the Pacific." 

We should appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have regarding 
this report. 

Very sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field, Secretary. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4057 

(Pencilled:) Farley- Amoo. Far Eastern Policy 
New York, N. Y., October 27, 1938. 
Hon. Nelson T. Johnson, 

The Embassy of the United States, 

Peiping, China. 

My Dear Ambassador: We are sending you a copy of "American Far Eastern 
Policy and the Sino-Japanese War," a report of the seven discussion conferences 
held under the auspices of the American Council in the spring of 1938. A similar 
series of meetings is to be held during the winter on "The United States and 
the Post-War Situation in the Pacific." 

We should appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have regarding 
this report. 

Very sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field, Secretary. 



New York, N. Y., October 27, 1938. 
Hon. J. C. Grew, 

American Embassy, Tokyo, Japan. 

My Dear Ambassador : We are sending you a copy of "American Far Eastern 
Policy and the Sino-Japanese War," a report of the seven discussion conferences 
held under the auspices of the American Council in the spring of 1938. A similar 
series of meetings is to be held during the winter on "The United States and the 
Post-War Situation in the Pacific." 

We should appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have regarding 
this report. 

Very sincerely yours, 

Fredehick V. FXEI.D, Secretary. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mr. Chen Han-seng. Mr. Field ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morris, on the 
grounds previously employed. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mr. Chen Han-seng when he was at the 
Institute of Pacific Kelations? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that on the same grounds. 

Mr. jSIorris. Mr. IMandel, will you identify this letter, please ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a letter from the files of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations. It is addressed from 57 Post Street, 
October 19, 1937, addressed to Mr. Chen Han-seng, Institute of 
Pacific Relations, and is signed with the typed signature of Frederick 
V. Field, this being a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter from the 
files of the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. Mr- Field, I offer you this letter and ask you if you 
can recall having written that to Mr. Chen Han-seng? [Handing to 
witness.] 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morris, on the 
grounds previously stated. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you receive this into the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, as a part of the records of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 631,-' and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 631 

(Written in) (CHEN) 

57 Post Street, October 19, 1937. 
Mr. Chen Han-seng, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East Fifty-second Street, New York City. 

Dear Han-seng : Your analysis of the Japanese super-Cabinet is very excellent 
indeed and a great help to me who did not know the background of all the people 



4058 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

inA-olved. You are, of course, quite right as to trends in that country. I cannot 
make up my mind whether Japan is a great deal stronger than we like to believe 
or not. It seems to me that historically people have always been inclined to 
underestimate the toughness of countries in that situation. This was certainly 
true of Germany in 1914. My guess is that unless we blockade Japan's trade, we 
shall not find any crack-up of her social or economic structure taking place for a 
very long time. 

I wonder what your thouglits are on the conduct of the Chinese defense? I am 
still greatly disturbed by the absence of any drastic shakeup in the Nanking 
Government. I am afraid that if this war lasts a long time, we are in for a 
great deal of internal difficulty in China. This is always what happens when 
you have at the head people who do not have the guts or conviction to clean out 
their opponents in a crisis. I am also worried about the enormous effort the 
Chinese are putting into positional warfare in Shanghai. In view of the fact 
that the trade of Shanghai and therefore the customs receipts have presumably 
stopped anyway, it does not seem to me that it is very much to fight for. While 
it is quite true that had Japan taken Shanghai easily and then marched up the 
Yangtze River to Nanking in the first few weeks of the war Chinese morale might 
have collapsed all over the country. The first defense of the Shanghai positions 
was, therefore, an essential political move on the part of the Chinese Government. 
I wonder, though, if this defense has not gone much too far and whether it is not 
now merely a waste of men and war materials, the latter being so difficult to 
replace. Personally, I should like to see much more efficient Chinese troop 
movement in the North to support the 8th Route Army in its guerrilla tactics. 
I am not at all certain about my views on Shanghai, though, and if you have a 
spare moment or two sometime I wish you would straighten me out. 

I have sent Bill Lockwood by the same mail a long letter regarding our research 
program and I should be grateful if you would, take a look at it. It may, I think, 
be possible for us to organize a fairly large study into the whole war situation. 
We could, I think, make a sufficiently penetrating analysis of the internal scenes 
in both China and Japan to provide a large part of the explanation as to why 
this war has occurred. Tlie disturbing thing is that once we make that sort 
of an analysis — it has, after all, been made repeatedly although not exhaustively 
with respect to both countries — nobody acts upon it. I should say, for instance, 
that it was perfectly clear what has been happening in Germany or Italy, as well 
as in Japan, but this seems to me to have very little effect on the policies of 
foreign countries. 

Thank you, also, for a copy of the original draft of the review of Harry Cannes' 
book. I am sorry that Jaffe refused to use it in AMERASIA. If I had been 
there, I should have been inclined to argue the point, although I think I under- 
stand why he felt it would not be good policy. My point of argument would 
have been that if our friends write liad books, we should expose them. Nothing 
can hurt the things in which we are interested so much as sloppy work. 
Sincerely yours, 

FREajERiCK V. Field. 

FVF rb 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, just so that you will know what some 
of these are about I would like to say this. I know it must be an 
awfully dull hearing under the circumstances, but I assure you it is 
very difficult to conduct an examination under these circumstances. 

This reads : 

Your analysis of the Japanese supercabinet is verj^ excellent indeed and a great 
help to me who did not know the background of all the people involved. You 
are, of course, quite right as to the trends in that country. I cannot make up 
my mind whether Japan is a great deal stronger than we like to believe or not. 
It seems to me that historically the people have always been inclined to under- 
estimate the toughness of countries in that situation. 

The purpose of introducing this into the record would be to ask Mr. 
Field to testify as to the source of the information and the practice in 
which he engaged at the time of exchanging information with Chen 
Han-seng, but apparently we can get nowhere on that line of question- 
ing, Mr. Chairman. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4059 

Senator O'Conor. It is obvious that the witness will not testify in 
regard to this, and I do not see any purpose in pursuing that line of 
inquiry any further. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. In the exchange of correspondence between Mr. Field 
and Mr. Chen Han-seng a letter from Chen Han-seng reads : 

Dear Fred : Herev/ith I enclose a copy of an interesting document, which please 
share with Owen. I don't think it is advisable to show it to anyone else. 

The document was mailed to me in Chinese from Hankow. It was originally 
presented to Chiang Kai-shek confidentially, and as I understand it, Chiang has 
accepted many major points for decisive reform in the light of this presentation. 
Even in abstract form it is interesting because it shows both China's strength, 
which is potential, and China's weakness which we have reason to believe is 
transitory. 

Then the related document is marked "Private and confidential," 
dated the I7th of June 1938. 

I will ask the witness if he can recall having seen the letter from 
Chen Han-seng to him or the accompanying report. [Handing to 
witness.] 

]Mr. Field. Mr. Morris, I decline to answer on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. 

Senator O'Conor. AYould you identify, or are you disposed to make 
any reference at all to the word "Owen" in here or as to the inclusion 
of that reference ? 

Mr. Field. I am willing to do so in the abstract, but not with 
reference to that letter. 

Senator O'Conor. In the abstract. 

Mr. Field. In the abstract, if I emjDloyed the word "Owen" it was 
most likely to relate to Owen Lattimore. 

Senator O'Conor. I meant to refer to it without reference to its 
being embodied in that communication. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify that last document, please, Mr, 
Mandel? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of an original letter from the files 
of the Institute of Pacific Kelations on a letterhead marked 129 East 
Fifty-second Street. It is dated July 20, 1938, addressed to Mr. 
Frederick V. Field and signed Chen' Han-seng. Attached thereto 
is a memorandum marked "Private and confidential," dated June 17, 
1938. Chen Han-seng's name is in the upper right-hand corner. It 
is headed "Abstract from a joint-report of the Chinese journalists 
on the Tientsin-Pukow war front, regarding the points of weakness of 
the Chinese Army at present." 

IVIr. Morris. Will you receive that into the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. 'Yes, it will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 632" and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 632 

129 East 52nd Street, 
'New York, 20th July, ]933. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

1793 California Street, San Francisco. 

Dear Fred : Herewith I enclose a copy of an interesting document, which please 
share with Owen. I don't think that it is advisable to show it to anyone else. 

The document was mailed to me in Chinese from Hankow. It was originally 
presented to Chiang Kai-shek confidentially, and as I understand it, Chiang has 
accepted many major points for decisive reform in the light of this presentation. 
Even in abstract form it is interesting because it shows both China's strength. 



4060 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

which is potential, and China's weakness, which we have reason to believe is 
transitory. 

The people in China are laboring under a tremendous amount of corruption 
and inefficiency, similar to that of the Czaristic regime. But considering their 
poor heritage they are really doing well both politically and militarily. Chiang 
Kai-shek is now very friendly to both the Chinese people and the Soviet Govern- 
ment. 

If you see Owen, you may tell him that his friend Freda Utley has excited 
immense interest among my Chinese friends in Hong Kong and Hankow where 
she arrived by plane on July 9th. She will return to England two months from 
now. 

Sincerely yours, 

[s] Han-seng 

Chen Han-sbng. 

[Private and confidential] 

(Written in:) CHEN, Han-seng 
17th June 11)38. 

Abstract From a Joint Eepokt of the Chinese Joxjbnalists on the Tientsin- 
PuKow War Front, Regarding the Points of Weakness of the Chinese ^^jimy 
AT Present 

1. RELATING TO THE MILITARY PROBLEM IN GENEBAL 

1. Relating to strategic matters 

(a) Overrespect for public opinion. Some commanding officers try to win the 
support of public opinion to the extent that they often neglect what is really 
advantageous from military viewpoints. To this end, the desire for popularity 
exceeds the realisation of the necessity for general cooperation and often leads 
to unnecessary sacrifices. 

(b) The inadequate application of the scorched-earth policy. Some troops try 
to hold an obviously untenable position ; and, when they finally have to withdi-aw, 
they have no time to destroy what may be utilised by the enemy. The Tsa-chuang 
coal mine in Shantung and the railray tracks near Hsuchow are two cases in 
point. 

2. Relating to the troops themselves 

(a) The bogging of commanding officers in administrative affairs. In the 
majority of cases the organisation of staff people is incomplete, hence the com- 
manding officer is bogged down by miscellaneous administrative affairs. Military 
mistakes are often due to lack of preparation and thought. 

(b) The commanding officers do not have the spirit of learning from ex- 
perience. The high commanding officers are still indifferent to learning lessons 
from the most precious and costly experience of their subordinate officers on the 
battlefield. 

(c) Lack of encouragement to the soldiers and lower officers. Rewards and 
promotions are far from being sufficient for this purpose. 

(d) The commanding officers do not adequately realise their responsibilities. 
There i.« a, strong tendency on the part of some commanding officers to fight to 
the finish at critical moments, instead of obeying their superior's orders to carry 
out other instructions. There is a general idea of glory in fighting to the death, 
which is not a true realisation of carrying out their responsibilities. 

(e) Poor intelligence service. The intelligence work itself is incomplete, 
partly because of material insufficiency but also partly because of the poor 
personnel. The crucial point is that the troops have not sufficiently utilized 
the people in general for intelligence service— a point which the Japanese can- 
not take advantage and of which the Chinese have not fully done. 

(f) Poor political training among the troops. Generally speaking, the po- 
litical workers in the troops (the 8th Route Army excepted) are still puppets 
of the commanding officers. Among the troops there are heaps of dry-cut military 
orders, but educational measures are still very rare. In some troops there has 
not been a single lecture given since the beginning of the fighting. 

3. Relating to recruiting 

(a) In numerous cases able-bodied peasants have been illegally bound with 
ropes and thus forced into military service. There is still, therefore, a lot of 
resentment among the new soldiers. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4061 

(b) The organizations for training new soldiers need to be completely re- 
formed ; otherwise the training of new soldiers will always I'emain poor. 

(c) The treatment of the new soldiers is of the most miserable kind. The 
Szechwan soldiers fighting in the Hsuchow area still wear padded cotton uni- 
forms, and their monthly allowance is several months in arrears. The con- 
stant change of commanding officers and the squeeze system from one layer 
to another still operates to crush the spirit of the new soldiers. 

Ji. Relating to the problem of blockhouses 

(a) During the years of the anti-Communist campaigns, many provincial 
authorities have built up numerous blockhouses originally designed by General 
Von Seckt. It was useful to the Nanking troops whose weapons were superior 
to the Red Army to set-up such blockhouses, but now these same blockhouses are 
useful only to the Japanese whose weapons are superior. Once the Japanese 
get hold of them, it is advantageous to the Japanese, both in offensive and on the 
defensive. The Chinese troops could have reached Tsinan after their victory 
in Taiehrchuang had it not been for the blockhouses in the southern part of 
Shantung, which had been occupied by the Japanese. It is obvious, therefore, 
that the blockhouses must be destroyed before the enemy captures them. 

II. RELATING TO THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL MOBILISATION 

1. Relating to civil administration in the war area 

There is a lack of unity of administration in the war area ai'ound Hsuchow. 
While General Li Tsung-jen was the commanding officer of the fifth war area — 
Hsuchow is its center — his orders to the civilians never took effect. The old 
system of local "pao chia" simply cannot cope with wartime political functions. 

2. Relating to mass mobilisation 

(a) Mass mobilisation committees (the territory covered by the 8th Route 
army excepted) so far only exist in name. Party prejudices have worked against 
the actual functioning. Those appointed by- the authorities simply have no idea 
whatsoever of mass mobilisation. 

(b) The real masses still remain untouched as far as mobilisation goes. For 
instance, there are 30,000 to 40,000 railway workers on the Tsienpu and Kiaotsi 
lines, 40,000 to 50,000 coal miners in Shantung, and numerous peasants in the 
war zone eager to participate, but so far without any direction. 

III. RELATING TO THE PROBLEMS IN THE REAR 

1. War refugees 

Until now the war refugees have not been taken care of, and their free and 
unregulated movements cannot but affect the people both on the war front and 
behind the lines, and furthermore create an additional burden for the govern- 
ment. Any relief of a passive and negative nature cannot cope with this prob- 
lem and must ultimately disappoint the refugees. If this problem is not properly 
handled, therefore, it will objectively be giving the enemy a good chance to utilize 
the situation. From now on a positive policy must be adopted which must de- 
mand as its maxim that the refugees should return to their home places. Before 
they are sent back, however, they must be given an adequate training, both 
political and technical, so that vv-hen they return they will be organised to take 
up activities against the enemy. The present relief funds can be used' f dr sending 
them back. 

2. Wounded soldiers 

The miserable treatment of the wounded soldiers at present is partly due to 
inadequate supply of medicine and medical workers but is also partly due to the 
inefficiency and corruption among governmental officials whose duties are for 
public health administration. 

IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS 

Based upon common and accurate observations described above, the following 
four items are deemed to be of immediate necessity : 

1. Intensification of the spirit of national resistance. Everybody should be 
told and have explained that there is no possibility of halfway measures in the 
matter of war and that before the final victory it is impossible to hope for one's 

88348— 52— pt. 12 3 



4062 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

individual future. Only in this way can opportunism, indifference, and factional 
strife be eliminated. 

2. Thorough mobilisation of the masses. The power of the masses is un- 
limited, but they must be organised. Mere decrees and posters will not do. With- 
out real strength for organisation, there will be no result. 

3. Further and better organisation of political and military administrations, 
(a) The relations between political parties must be legalised and systematised 
to avoid unnecessary frictions, (b) the existing "pao chia" system for local 
defense must be improved by increasing its finance and by improvements in 
staff work. This can easily be achieved by reducing the number of higher 
officials and also by appointing new and efficient workers, (c) More emphasis 
should be laid on the organisation of general staff work in the troops. 

4. More emphasis on political work. As political work is the basic soul of all 
organisation, both civil and military activities, especially under emergency, 
require discipline and I'esoluteness. This can only be achieved by intensifying 
and widening political work everywhere. Without such political work it is 
difficult to eradicate the present corruption in officialdom. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, did you make any effort to amalgamate your 
activities in the Institute of Pacific Relations with those of the movie 
industry in any way ? 

Mr. Field. I guess the word "amalgamate" is a little confusing. 

Mr. Morris. Integrate. 

Mr, Field. I have no doubt that I made every effort to try and 
raise some funds in Hollywood in any connection that we may have 
had. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Manclel, will you identify this document, please? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter from 
the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations dated September 25, 
1939, addressed to Miss Margaret R. Taylor, care of Miss Eloise 
Requa, Library of International Relations, 8G East Randolph Street, 
Chicago, 111., and it has a typed signature of Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, can you recall having written that letter? 
Here is an extra copy that I think will be easier to read. [Handing 
to witness.] 

Mr. Field. I do not recall the letter, Mr. Morris, but generally it 
does refresh my memory as to the kind of thing we were trying to do. 

Mr. Morris. "Will you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Field. From the evidence itself, or tlie letter, I managed to 
reach Mr. Frederick March on the long-distance telephone, and he 
seems to have made a very favorable impression on me, at the same 
time not making it possible for me to visit him. And I convey to 
Miss Taylor certain suggestions he made of people who should be 
seen on the west coast. 

Mr. Morris. Who is Marion Sister? 

Mr. Field. Her name means nothing to me. She is here described 
as of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League. 

Mr. Morris. Are you acquainted with the Hollywood Anti-Nazi 
League ? 

Mr. Field. No ; I wasn't. I have heard about it, but I knew noth- 
ing personally about it. 

Mr. Morris. You will notice down in the next paragraph — go ahead, 
Mr. Field. 

Mr. Field. I would like to continue. In this letter I probably con- 
veyed to Miss Taylor that Mr. ^Nlarch had suggested trying to get in 
touch with Mr. Melvyn Douglas, who Avas the active secretary or 
director of something that sounded over the j^hone like the Motion 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4063 

Picture Democratic Committee, about which I know nothing at all. 
He suggested the Motion Picture Artists Committee, in connection 
with which I seemed to haA^e written down two names, John Stewart 
and Charles Page. At the moment, ]Mr. Morris, neither of those names 
means anything to me at all. All through the conversation he kept 
mentioning the name of Biberman, but in what connection I cannot 
recall. 

Mr. ^loKHis. Is that the Biberman we have been talking about? 

jNIr. Field. I don't know, but from the evidence here I didn't know 
his name, and I say here, which is very familiar, but in what connection 
I cannot recall. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know any man by that name? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. Apparently I didn't at that time know any such person, 
as it would seem to be clear. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read the next sentence ? 

Mr. Field (reading) : 

According to March, Biberman is mixed up in every organization in Hollywood, 
so that it is quite likely that he is Joe Stalin's personal representative. 

Mr. Morris. Is that the same ^Ir. Biberman that you refused to 
testify about ? 

Mr. Field. I haven't the slightest idea, and obviously that is not 
a sentence which is of careful political formulation. 

Had I been talking face to face with March, I would have told him that it was 
unwise for organizations like ours to work exclusively through these left-wing 
Hollywood groups. 

Mr. Morris. What did you mean by "left-wing Hollywood groups" ? 
Mr. Field. Do you want me to read that sentence, Mr. Morris? 
Senator O'Coxor. Yes. I think it is only fair. 
Mr. Field (reading) : 

Had I been talking face to face with March, I would have told him that it 
was unwise for organizations like ours to work exclusively through the left- 
wing Hollywood groups. It is quite possible that he would have replied that you 
have to work through them or not work at all, because they represent the only 
socially active people out there. You will have to find out about this on the 
spot. It has just occuri-ed to me that my cousin Shirley Burden. Bill Burden's 
brother, is married to Douglas Fairbanks' niece — a marriage, I may say, on 
which the Fairbanks family frowned but which was greeted from my end in the 
hopes that it would revitalize the palpably growing decadence. In any case, this 
may be a way by which to get in touch with the Fairbanks family. Burden him- 
self has a show of his own, doing educational pictures. I am told that he is a 
really first-rate cameraman (incidentally, he did his apprenticeship under 
Marion Cooper, to whom you have a letter). I have never met his wife, but I 
am told that she is a right nice gal. I doubt if you can get money from Shirley, 
but you might try. I imagine that his business runs at a big deficit. 

And I give the address. Do you want me to go on? 

Mr. ]\Iorris. I would like to ask a few questions. 

Mr. Field. All right. 

Mr. ^loRRis. What did you mean when you said that it would be 
unwise for organizations like yours, the Institute of Pacific Relations, 
to work exclusively through the left-wing Holh^wood groups? 

Mr. Field. I didn't say that. The letter states 

Mr. Morris. It is vour letter, is it not? 



4064 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. I told you earlier, I have no recollection of it, but I 
cei'tainly don't deny that it might have been and probably was. 
The letter states : 

Had I been talking face to face with March, I would have told him that it was 
unwise for organizations like ours to work exclusively through these left-wing 
Hollywood groups. 

I engaged in a hypothetical conversation which never took place be- 
tween March and myself. 

Mr. Morris. You did refer, however, to these left-wing Hollywood 
groups clearly in reference to the groups that you have been talking 
about ? 

Mr. Field. In the context it would seem that way. 

Mr. Morris. Is there anything else you can tell us about that let- 
ter, Mr. Field? 

Mr. Field. No; there isn't. One thing is that, as I recall, we 
got practically nothing out of these eif orts. 

Senator O'Conor. ISIr. Field, there is mentioned parenthetically 
there the name of Marion Cooper. 

Mr. Field. Yes. 

Senator O'Conor. I recall that that name was mentioned in con- 
nection with your application for a commission in the Army, and I 
wondered whether it was the same person. 

Mr. Field, I remember reading that. Wasn't it his brother who 
had interviewed me? His brother was in some academic connection. 
I believe it was in that connection. 

Senator O'Conor. There is a letter signed "Fred" and addressed 
to E. C. Connor of February 18, 1942, stating, "Someone suggested 
the other day that Marion Cooper, our friend Jolm Cooper's brother, 
was fairly high up in the Army Intelligence." 

Mr. Field. It is the other way around ; yes. I don't think that is 
the same 

Senator O'Conor. I was wondering whether there was a connection 
between the two. 

Mr. Morris. It is a different name. 

Mr. Field. It is a different one. This Marion Cooper was a movie 
director who was a brother of a John Cooper who was associated 
with the institute who is a businessman; he was president of a com- 
pany. 

Senator O'Conor. I wondered whether there was any relation, 
either family or otherwise. 

Mr. Field. I must say I don't know, but I don't think it is the same 
person. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, did you know E. Herbert Norman? 

Mr. Field. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Morris. What were your associations with E. Herbert Norman ? 

Mr. Field. I knew him — he was a member or perhaps at some time 
a staff member of the corresponding body in Canada, which I believe 
was called the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, and I knew 
him in that capacity, and in this way I would have known him in the 
Royalist School of International Affairs in England or other corre- 
sponding bodies. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet him in connection with your associa- 
tion with the American Friends of the Chinese People? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4065 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer on the premise previously stated. 

Mr, Morris. Do you know whether he was a member of the Amer- 
ican Friends of the Chinese People? 

Mr. Fields. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify this letter, please, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is an original letter from the files of the Insti- 
tute of Pacific Relations on the letterhead of the American council, 
Institute of Pacific Relations, dated April 19, 1938, addressed to Mr. 
Edward C. Carter and signed "Fred" with the typed signature of 
Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, I offer you that letter and ask you if you 
can recall having seen that ? [Ilanding to witness.] 

Mr. Field. I am sorry. What was your question? Whether this 
was my letter ? 

Mr.'lSIoRRis, Yes. 

Mr. Field. As in the case of these other letters, Mr. Morris, I don't 
recall it, but it seems to be my signature. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read the letter, Mr. Field? 

Mr. Field. It is a letter tliat I might well have written [reading] : 

Exhibit No. 633 

San Francisco, April 19, 1938. 
Dear Mr. Carter : I am clelightecl to learn that the RoekefeUer Foundation has 
given E. H. Norman a third year on his fellow-ship and that they have assigned 
him to your secretariat inquiry. He is an exceUent man. You will perhaps 
have noticed from the very first issue of Amerasia up to the next to the last 
issue that Jafte, Chi, and I have been making all possible use of him. You could 
not have made a better clioice. 
Sincerely yours, 

Fred. 

Mr. INIorris. Were you instrumental at all in securing the Rocke- 
feller Foundation grant ? 

Mr. Field, I don't know, I might have been. This was a period 
when I was secretary on the American council. No, come to think 
of it, I wouldn't have been, because he didn't come under our juris- 
diction, being a Canadian, and I imagine that they handled it them- 
selves. 

Mr. Morris. In connection with the Association of American 
Friends of the Chinese People, did it have an affiliate, the Canadian 
Friends of the Chinese People ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viousl}' stated. 

Mr. ]\ioRRis. Now, how active was Mr. Norman in the publication 
Amerasia ? 

Mr. Field. I would acknowledge any article you have listed in the 
files. From this it seems that he wrote some articles. To answer 
your question more precisely, if he did write some articles, and I as- 
sume he did, that would be the limit of his association. I don't be- 
lieve he was at any time a member of the board, but again I would 
stand by the masthead. 

Mr. Morris. You say "He is an excellent man. You will perhaps 
have noticed from the very first issue of Amerasia up to the next to 
the last issue that Jaffe, Chi, and I have been making all possible use 
of him." 



4066 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. That is tlie reason I say tliat I assume he had been 
writing articles. 

Mr. iNIoRRis. Do you know whether he used a pseudonym at all? 

Mr. Field. I do not. I can't testify for Mr. Norman. 

Mr. Morris. Do a'ou know as a matter of fact whether or not he 
did? 

Mr. Field. No. 

Mr. Morris. You were the editor of the publication, were you not? 

Mr. Field. I don't know, I assume he didn't. You probably have 
the files. Let's look it up. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will the Margaret R. Taylor letter go 
into the record? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes; the original. 

Mr. Morris. Yes; the original. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. G33 and 
634." No. 633 was read in full; and 634 is as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 634 
[Air mail] 

New York City, St'ijicnibi-r 25, liJS9. 
Miss Margaret R. Taylor, 
% Miss Eloise ReQtia, 

Library of International Relations, 

86 East Randolph Street, Cliicago, III. 

Dear Margaret: For your information you will lind enclosed a brief report iu 
which I have tried to note the progress or lack of it made in various lines we have 
been trying to promote during the last few weeks. 

I am sorry to say that the best I was able to do with Frederic March was a 
very lengthy long-distance telephone conversation. He could not have been 
more cordial but I naturally regret that I did not have a chance to sit down and 
tell him in a great deal more detail than I could over the telephone what we were 
driving at. It turned out that he was leaving with his wife on a motor trip lo 
the South yesterday and, incidentally that I could not have seen him at the the- 
ater if I had stayed over on Friday evening. Over the telephone he suggested 
that we get in touch with Miss Marian Sister of the Hollywood Anti-Nazi League. 
As my end of the conversation was held from my famous New Hartford party 
line, I had a hell of a time getting names straight in spite of the fact that he 
spelled each of them out. When you are in Hollywood, therefore, you will have 
to garble names like Sister and see if you can get a precise reaction from any 
informant you can find. March told me to use his name in api>roaching this lady, 
that she was a close personal friend of his wife and himself, and that she knew 
all the progressive people in the movie industry. He gave the impression that 
we could count very heavily on her. I suggest, therefore, that you call on her 
and find out what she has to suggest. 

March also suggested that we get iu touch with Melvin Douglas who, he tells 
me, is the active secretary or director of something that sounded over the phone 
like the Motion Picture Democratic Committee. He also suggested tile Motion 
Picture Artists Committee in connection with which I seem to have written down 
two names, John Stewart and Charles Page. All through the conversation he 
kept mentioning the name of Biberman — which is very familiar but in what con- 
nection, I cannot recall. According to March, Biberman is mixed up in every 
organization in Hollywood, so that it is quite likely that he is Joe Stalin's per- 
sonal representative. Had I been talking face to face with March I would have 
told .him that it was unwise for organizations like ours to work exclusively 
through these left-wing Hollywood groups. It is quite iwssible that he would 
have replied that you have to work through them or not work at all, because they 
represent the oidy socially active people out there. You will have to find out 
about this on the spot. It has just occurred to me that my cousin Shirley Burden, 
P.ill Burden's brother, is married to r>ouglas Fairbanks' niece — a marriage, I may 
say, on which the Fairbanks family frowned but which was greeted from my 
end in the hopes that it would revitalize the jialpably growing decadence. In 
any case, this may be a way by which to get in touch with the Fairbanks family. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS • 406Z 

Burden himself has a show of his own, doing educational pictures. I am told 
that he is a really first-rate cameraman (incidentally, he did his apprenticeship 
under Marion Cooper to whom you have a letter). I have never met his wife but 
I am told that she is a right nice gal. I doubt if you can gfet money from Shirley 
hut you might try. I imagine that his business runs at a big deficit. Their 
address is 930 vSeward Avenue, Hollywood. Use my name freely in trying to get 
after him. I haven't seen him in 10 years but my brother Osgood sees him quite 
frequently. You will find him a very nice, unintellectual guy and beautiful to 
look at. 

I am sending a copy of this letter on to Scott in the hope that he may run across 
a few of these names and addresses for you before you reach Los Angeles and 
thus help you get started a little faster. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 
• Copy to Mr. Scott. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mr. Chao Ting Clii ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds previ- 
ously stated. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this? 

Mr. Field. Could I have just a moment on that last question ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, indeed. 

Mr. Field. Which name did you ask me there? 

Mr. Momis. Dr. Chi, Dr. Chao Ting Chi. 

Mr. Field. What I want to do is, I think you asked me the same 
question on my last appearance here. 

Mr. MoRRis.*^ Yes. 

Mr. Field. And I believe I acknowledged knowing him. If I did 
then, I would certainly do so again at this time, but 1 would like to 
verify whether I did. Do you remember from your personal know- 
ledge whether I did ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes, you discussed him at length. 

Mr. Field. All right, so I knew him. 

Mr. Morris. From some recent contact you had with him. 

Mr. Field. So I knew him then. I won't use the privilege. 

Mr. Maxdel. I have here a photostat of two documents from the 
files of the Institute of Pacific Relations. One is a photostat of a 
carbon copy of a letter dated April 20, 1938, air mail, addressed to Mr. 
Edward C. Carter with the typed signature of Frederick V. Field. 
The other is a Western Union telegram, a photostat of an original, 
addressed to Frederick V. Field, signed Edward C. Carter, dated 
April 19, 1938. 

Mr. Morris. Are these taken from the files of the Institute of Pacific 
Relations? 

Mr. Maxdel. They are. 

Mr. Morris. Tlie telegram signed by Mr. Edwai-d C. Carter was 
directed to Mr. Frederick Y. Field and it reads : 

Exhibit No. 635 

Confidential if we should decide to send Chi to China for 5 mouths for inquiry 
air mail me what topics in China outline you feel he could most usefully tackle. 

Do you remember jNIr. Carter sending you this telegram ? 

Mr. Field. No, I don't have any recollection of it. 

Mr. Morris. Did you make use of Mr. Chi in your work in the work 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Field. He was never on the staff of the American council. On 
that the answer to that is "No, I did not." 



,4068 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. What is the reference to that Mr. Carter makes there ? 

Mr. Field. He asked for 1113^ advice, apparently, on tlie nse to whicli 
he in his capacity in the international organization presumably would 
put Mr. Chi. 

Mr. Morris. Now, this other letter is from you to Mr. Carter dated 
April 20, 1938. I wonder if you will read the first few paragraphs 
of that, Mr. Field? 

Mr, Field. It is from San Francisco, April 20, 1938 [reading! : 

Dear Mr. Carter: I am very glad indeed to learn from your nice letter re- 
ceived tbis morning that you are considering sending Chi to China for 5 months 
on behalf of the secretariat's inquiry. 

That would be the International Secretariat — 

I shall keep this matter confidential until you have made a decision, with the 
exception, however, that I shall reveal it to Lattimore who has recently asked 
me what Chi's plans were for the summer. 

It happens that I can give you fairly definite suggestions as to the topics which 
Chi could most usefully tackle because in another connection he has very re- 
cently outlined three subjects which he is particularly interested to investigate 
and with regard to which he feels qualified. 

One of these subjects is a study of the economic and political process of 
development of the southwestern provinces (Szechuan, Kweichow, and Yunnan) 
from a regional entity into a part of a united China. As Chi describes it "this 
will involve an investigation of the historical developments of this region, the 
part it plays in the present war. and the inevitable transformation of the econ- 
omy and politics of that region that is bound to occur as a result of the war." 
You would, I imagine, want to cut down the historical aspect of this subject 
and ask him to concentrate on very recent and current developments. 

The second subject is a study of the socio-economic, political, and cultural 
conditions in the Northwest with special reference to the prosecution and the 
aftermath of the war. 

The third subject involves a study of the changes in Chinese foreign trade 
resulting from tlie war and a discussion of foreign trade policy from the point 
of view of the interest of foreign traders as well as that of China's future 
economic development. 

All three of these subjects, it seems to me, fall within the scope of our staff 
memorandum entitled "Outline for a Proposed Study of Chinese Political Uni- 
fication and Economic Reconstruction, 1931-38." If I had not had these specific 
interests of Chi's before me I would have replied to your telegram simply that 
Chi should be asked to document the project on nearly all the subjects con- 
tained in the outline. That is, indeed, what his own three suggestions amount 
to, stated, however, in a more concrete form than I would have been able to do. 

I hope most sincerely that this plan goes through and that, if it does, you 
can arrange to have Chi stop over in San Francisco for at least a week on his 
way out. I could then arrange to have him pick up information and documents 
for the Economic Handbook project which we may have considerable difficulty 
in securing in this country. I would, of course, undertake not to put such a load 
on him that it would interfere with whatever instructions you give him. 

Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Does that refresh your recollection on your dealings 
with INIr. Chi ? 

Mr. Field. On my dealings with Mr. Chi ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Field. No. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Chi help you in your Economic Handbook? 

Mr. Field. No; I don't believe he did. I don't believe anything 
ever came of that. I had another Chinese associate on the Handbook. 

Mr. Morris. Who was that ? 

Mr. Field. Mr. Liu Yu-wen. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4069 

Mr. Morris. I offer you this extract from the New Masses, this re- 
view in the New Masses, and ask you if you can recall that particular 
review ? 

Mr. Field. I don't recall the review itself, Mr. INIorris. I had a file 
of all the reviews of this book, because I edited the book and naturally 
kept all of the files with reviews I could find myself, but I don't 
remember this particular one. 

Mr. Morris. Who was that review by ? 

Mr. Field. I don't know. It says John Phillips. I don't know. 

Mr. Morris. You don't know who John Phillips is ? 

Mr. Field. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you receive this letter of Mv. Field's 
to Mr. Chen Han-seng, the telegram, and the one to E. C. Carter into 
the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes ; they will be admitted. 

(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 635", read 
in full above, "and 636," as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 636 

1795 Calitoknia Street, 
San Francisco, March 28, 1938. 
Mr. Chen Han-seng, 

129 East Fifty-second Street. New York, N. Y. 

Dear Han-seng : It was very good of you indeed, in reply to my wire of Marcli 
12th, to prepare an article for Amerasia on the present military situation in 
China. I had great pleasure in reading it and was particularly interested to 
see your supplementary comments on the Information you received from 
Hongkong. 

Thank you for sending me the translation of the Eighth Eoute Army's oath 
of loyalty. I agree with you that the developments which are taking place in 
China are hastening a London-Tokyo rapprochement. As we all know, when a 
united front of liberal elements in any country (whether it be Spain, France,* 
or China) is organized, the tendency is for this united front to move to the left. 
This is an inevitable development in that in each case the united front has been 
led by the Communist Party which has, also in each case, furnished the most 
able leadership. The result, naturally, is to crystallize the opposition. British 
policy, if it has tried to do anything in the last several years, has been directed, 
first, against the successful defense of Spain by the Government, second, in an 
effort to break up the popular front in France and, third and most recently, 
it is becoming alarmed at the success of the very processes which a year ago 
it was advocating in China. 

I have no inside dope on the London-Tokyo rapprochement, unless some ele- 
mentary knowledge of the course of modern history can be regarded as inside 
dope. Judging from the extraordinary ignorance of most of our statesmen 
regarding the almost inevitable developments in the world, I am beginning to 
think that this elementary knowledge is privileged information. In any case, 
it is quite clear from all the evidence that the British Government wants to 
make a deal with Japan for the mutual exploitation of Cliina and for mutual pro- 
tection against a left-wing government being successful in emerging after the 
far eastern war. I learned only today (although this has very likely been in the 
New York papers) that the British Counselor of Embassy in China has spent the 
last two weeks in Tokyo. I doubt if he is on vacation. 

Just as Great Britain has been absolutely powerless to curb Japan, I rather 
imagine that it will not be very effective in now supporting her. Though I think 
that a London-Tokyo rapprochement emphasizes the danger to China I doubt 
very much if it will materially weaken the present efforts of the Chinese Govern- 
ment or strengthen tliose of the Japanese. 

A more alarming international development which, I fear, may possibly have 
eventual implications in the United States policy towards fascism and aggres- 
sion is the recent development in Mexico. The expropriation of American oil 
interests puts the question squarely up to the State Department whether or not 



4070 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

it is actually going to siiinx)rt free and independent developments in Latin-Ameri- 
can republics or whether it is to return to the more obvious phases of Monroe 
r»octrine imperialism. Judging from the Government's first reaction, namely 
the Treasury Department's move on silver, I am afraid that we are going to inter- 
fere very seriously with what should be a purely domestic question in Mexico. 
As I understand it, the Mexican Government has been entirely legal in expro- 
priating its own oil lands, that is so long as they compensate the foreign inter- 
ests. Our Government may criticize the methods employed, they may regard 
it as too drastic, but it should be left at that, merely at the point of disagree- 
ment. It should not be allowed to pass on to active intervention in the form 
adopted by the Treasury Department. The reason that I fear this Mexican 
development may have repercussions in other regions is that up to this time the 
United States has been able to oppose fascism because it was taking place in 
regions fairly remote from our borders. When the question is brought directly 
to our back door we may, in what is supposed to be self-interest, take an opposite 
course and oppose a fairly left-wing people's government with the result that 
we shall gradually have to extend this attitude in your relations to other regions. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 

Mr. Morris. Will you receive this into the record, Mr. Chairnian? 
Senator O'Conor. Wliich is this? 
Mr. Morris. This is a review in the New Masses. 
Senator O'Conor. Yes, this will be admitted. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 637" and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 637 

[New Ma.sses, August 14, 1934 : Review of Economic Handbook of the Pacific] 

Dead Figures on the Pacific 

(Economic Handbook of the Pacific Area, edited for IPR l)y Frederick V. Field, 

Doubleday, Doran and Company. $5) 

, Here is a book of 650 pages closely printed with innumerable tables, figures, 
and data on the economic factors underlying the structure of the many countries 
touching the Pacific Ocean totalling half the population of the world. In addi- 
tion to the so-called Far East with its nations, colonies and territories, there are 
also included such countries as the United States, the U. S. S. R., Australia, 
Canada, etc. There is no question that the vast quantity of information 
gathered in this handbook is very valuable to students of the Far East. Many 
subjects are dealt with : Population, Land Utilization, Food, Transportation, 
Finance, Capital Movements, Trade, Minerals, xVgriculture, and Textiles. The 
bibliography itself is very useful. 

But what is the purpose of this compilation? Fl-ederick V. Field who edited 
ic for the Institute of Pacific Relations writes in the preface that "the volume 
may now be defined as concerned entirely with the material aspects of the 
vastly complicated and increasingly important economic problems of the peoples 
of the Pacific area." So far so good. But, then the next sentence reads : 
"Among these problems the elemental factors of population and the use people 
make of the land on which they live are of first importance." They are of first 
importance only in liberated peoples. Facts of real first importance are un- 
fortunately omitted from the book. Does not Mr. Field know that the "use 
people make of land" is entirely dependent upon their power and freedom to 
use it. Especially is this an important point in the Far Eastern colonies where 
imperialists are rampant. What have the Chinese or the Philippine masses of 
their own accord to do with using land? 

Newton D. Baker in a foreword gives us the answer. He says : "They (the 
statistics in this book) are addressed to no existing controversy and are not 
aimed to support or combat any thesis. They are just facts witliout emotion." 
Yes, facts do not need emotion, but facts need a lot of explanation and analysis 
before they can take on any meaning. Otherwise, facts become dead, as indeed 
the facts and statistics in this handbook are dead and meaningless. This re- 
view is not an attemi^t to belittle the importance of the book, but it is precisely 
those facts and explanations which are omitted which would bring this book 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4071 

to life and stir people to action against a small yroup of imperialists and 
linaneiers who are impoverishing a world of plenty. 

A few illustrations will help to clarify the point. In the chapter on "Land 
Utilization" there appears the following statement : "The utilization of land 
depends upon such factors as temperature, rainfall, topography, the quality 
of soils, etc." True enough, but what about the land that was destroyed by 
Japanese bombs around the area of the Great Wall of China which made twenty 
million Chinese homeless last year. What about the 108,813,115 famine victims 
in ( 'hina from "natural and human calamities" reported last year by the In- 
vestigation of International Kelief Commission? If the money spent for civil 
warfare against the Chinese masses were used instead for defense against 
floods and drought, there would be no "natural calamities." What about the 
vast acres of the most arable land in China which are converted to opium 
growing so that the militarists and imperialist lackeys can draw large funds 
for the support of their armies. What about Soviet China (one-fourth of 
China proper) and the remarkable progress it has been making toward build- 
ing up a plentiful food supply? Where are these figures? Why are they 
omitted? The answer is easy. These omitted facts and figures would prove a 
"thesis" that would endanger the power of the imperialists and bankers. 

In the same chapter there is a table giving the remarkable increase in pro- 
ductivity on the collective farms of the U. S. S. K. Doesn't it seem important 
to the editor to explain the reasons and the economic philosophy behind this 
amazing growth? And when the Roosevelt A. A. A. program of taking acreage 
out of production is discussed, isn't it a vital statistic to show that while wheat 
and cotton are plowed under, millions are starving and nearly naked? 

In the chapter on "Transportation," the editor apparently is not aware that 
only :-50 percent of the railways Japan is building in Manchuria is warranted 
on economic grounds. That 70 percent is planned for military reasons, for the 
preparations of an attack against the U. S. S. R. Certainly such clarification 
belongs to an economic handbook. 

In the chapter on "Pul)lic Finance" there appears the figure of over 300 million 
dollars (.")() percent of total expenditure) in the Chinese figures for military 
expenditures. Does not Mr. Field know that every cent of it is spent to fight the 
Chinese people in the Soviet territory? Who covers the Nanking government's 
deficit? Who supplies the Nanking government with military aeroplanes, pilots, 
and instructors? Where are these facts and figures? 

Such omissions are so numerous that they become conspicuous by their ab- 
sence. Their inclusion would light up the figures into a "thesis" that Newton 
Baker and his colleagues fear so much. 

John Phillips. 

Mr. FiKLD. May I point out that this book was reviewed by every 
newspaper and journal in all the academic publications. It received 
quite favorable reviews, even if I say so myself. And simply because 
one of a very many reviews happens to come from the New Masses is 
no reflection whatsoever on the book itself or the work of the institute. 

Mr. Morris. May we have a short recess ? I have some urgent busi- 
ness that calls me outside. 

Senator O'Conor. Yes. 

Mr. jMorris. I think 10 minutes will do. 

Senator O'Conor. We will recess for 10 minutes. 

Mr. Field. Could I ask roughly how much longer it is going to take ? 

Mr. Morris. I think another half hour. 

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 

Senator O'Coxor. The hearing will please be in order. 

Mr. ]\Iorris, will you proceed i 

Mr. ]\Iorris. Mr. Chairman, we have a representative of the War 
Department here. I wish he would identify himself. Colonel, will 
you identify yourself, please ? 

Senator O'Conor, Will you come around, please ? 



4072 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. ROWLAND H. RENWANZ, PERSONNEL 
SECURITY BRANCH OF THE SECURITY DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE 
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF, G-2 (INTELLIGENCE), DEPART- 
MENT OF THE ARMY 

Colonel Renwanz. I am Colonel Renwanz. 

Senator O'Conor. And your first name? 

Colonel Renwaxz. Rowland — R-o-w-l-a-n-d. 

Mr. Morris. Colonel, have I shown you a copy of the executive ses- 
sion testimony of Colonel Church of Friday, January 11, 1952, pre- 
sided over by Senator Ferguson ? 

Colonel Renwanz. You have. 

Mr. IMoRRis. Have w^e the permission of the War Department to 
introduce that into our public record ^ 

Colonel Renw^JiNz. Yes, sir ; you have. 

Mr, Morris. This is an examination of Colonel Church in connection 
with terminating the questions about the efforts made on the part of 
the Army to find the papers connected with Mr. Field's application 
for a commission. We have a statement from an Army representative. 
If there is no objection on the part of the Army to introducing this 
into the record, may it therefore be introduced into the public record? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, sir ; it will be received. 

Mr. Morris. Thank you very nnich. 

(The record referred to was marked "Exhibit No. G38" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 638 

[Executive session — confidential] 

INTERNAL SECURITY 

f 

United States Senate, Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the 
Internal Security Act and Otlier Internal Security Laws of the Committee on 
the Judiciary, Washington, D. C, Friday, January 11, 1952 

The subcommittee met at 10:45 a. m., pursuant to call in room 139 Senate 
Office Building, Senator Homer Ferguson presiding. 
Present : Senator Ferguson. 

Also present : Subcommittee Counsel Robert Morris. 
Senator Ferguson. You have been sworn, Colonel? 
Colonel Church. Yes, I think that was the first of August. 

Testimony of Gerald L. Church, Colonel, Army General's Staff, Room 2E-519, 

The Pentagon, Washington, D. C. 

Senator Feirguson. You have been sworn. Colonel, but for the record please 
state your full name. 

Colonel Church. Gerald L. Church. 

Senator Ferguson. And you came in this morning to give us a memorandum. 
Would you explain what it is and where you obtained it. 

Colonel Church. This is a record that was discovered as a result of a search, 
a further search, of The Adjutant General's files that I agreed to you that we 
would make at the time I testified on August 1, 1951. A great number of files 
have been searched, and this was discovered in The Adjutant General's files at 
Alexandria, Va. ; and came to me on the 5th of December. At that time, of 
course, Congress was not in session, and this is the first opportunity that I 
have had to bring it over. Do you wish me to read this for the record? 

Senator Ferguson. I don't think he ought to read it, but I think the stenog- 
rapher ought to keep a copy of it. We will receive the whole thing in evidence 
and he can make a copy for our record. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4073 

Colonel Church. Very well. I would like to draw attention to the fact that 
llie document is classified confidential. 
(The memorandum referred to follows: ) 

War Department, 
Office of the Chief of the Army Air Forces, 

Washington, Februai-y I4, 1942. 

Memorandum to : The Assistant Secretary of War for Air. 
Subject: Mr. Frederick V. Field. 

1. On or about January 5, 1942, the attention of this office, Operations Unit, 
A-2, was directed to the above individual by the New York office of G-2 (Col. 
Frederick D. Sharp), as being qualified for employment in the Operations Unit, 
on either a civilian or commissioned status. Mr. Field was at that time inter- 
viewed in New York by an officer of the Operations Unit who was there at the 
time on other business. The results of the interview indicated that he was a 
candidate of sufficient promise to justify further interviews by the chief and 
other officers of the Operations Unit. 

2. Mr. Field, accordingly, was interviewed in Washington by several officers 
of the Operations Unit on or about January 8, 1942. It was suggested that he 
make application for civil-service appointment in order that his services might 
become available at as early a date as possible, and also apply for a commis- 
sion, in wliich capacity his services would be of greater value later on. 

3. About January 25, Colonel Sharp of the G-2 New York office informed one 
of the officers of the Operations Unit by telephone that he liad received an 
adverse report on Mr. Field from an ONI investigator (Mr. Peterkin). Mr. 
Peterkin was put on the phone and stated that Mr. Field's connections were 
unfavorable ; that his contacts with the Japanese in New York, with Mr. 
Joseph Lash, and with the Communist Party were sucli as to render his em- 
ployment in intelligence activities undesirable. The Civilian Personnel Divi- 
sion was, accordingly, requested to withdraw Mr. Field's application. 

4. Mr. Field inquired l)y telephone on about February 10, 1942, as to the sta- 
tus of his application and was informed that it had been disapproved by higher 
authority. He appeared in person at the Operations Unit on February 13, 1942, 
and was informed that this office was not in a position to give out any informa- 
tion ; that if he wished further information is would be necessary for him to 
investigate the matter himself. He stated that he would make an effort to see 
Mr. Lovett and Mr. Curry and try to get the matter straightened out. 

For the Chief of the Army Air Forces : 

[s] E. P. Curtis, 
Lieutenant Colonel, Air Corps, 

Secretary of the Air Staff. 

Senator Ferguson. There is a name mentioned there, the name of Currie. 
From your knowledge of all of the facts, who would you say that was? 

Colonel Church. It appears to me from a perusal of all of the files pertaining 
to Field that the Currie mentioned here is Laughlin Currie. 

Senator Ferguson. And he was attached to the White House. 

Colonel Church. Attached to the White House. 

Mr. Morris. Colonel Church, will you make an effort to have that declassified? 
The reason I say that is that the confidential aspect of that report has now been 
outworn, I think you will grant that, in view of all of the publicity. Will you try 
to get a declassification? 

Colonel Church. I will request authority. I do not have the authority myself. 

Mr. Morris. I understand that. And, Colonel, is it your opinion that the Army 
or the Air Force would like more time to continue the search for these papers 
that are missing, particularly the application of Field, the application itself of 
Field, from this committee? 

Colonel Church. We are continuing to moke inquiry and are making every 
effort to discover anything more pertaining to the subject. 

Mr. Morris. So your answer, then, Colonel, would be that you do want more 
time to continue the search? 

Colonel Church. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. And it indicates now clearly from this memorandum that 
he had made an application. 

Colonel Church. This so states, in effect. 

Senator Ferguson. And apparently when he was turned down he said tliat he 
was going to Lovett, that is, Bob Lovett, who was then Under Secretary of Air. 



4074 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Colonel Church. Then Under Secretary of War for Air. 

Senator Ferguson. He is now Secretary of Defense. 

Colonel Church. That is right. 

Senator FergusOx-^. And Laughlin Currie at the White House. That is what it 
indicates. 

Colonel Church. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. P.nt yet, as far as the files are concerned, the only thing 
that you had prior to this was a medical examination? 

Colonel Church. That is the only thing that we could find. Now, I want to 
tell you this ; it is possible that we will not be able to find any more, for the reason 
that tlie files of the Army, particularly The Adjutant General's files, are period- 
ically reviewed and papers which have no apparent present or future value are 
destroyed. That may have been done to any further papers in this. That, I 
don't know. I couldn't say. There wouldn't be any record in that case. 

Senator Ferguson. I am wondering why they would destroy the application 
and not the medical examination. 

Colonel Church. If it was a question of destruction, it might be that they were 
in two separate files, and one was destroyed and one wasn't. It would be a ques- 
tion, again, of misfiling. During the war, of course, they had many incompetent 
file clerks. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you look through the Currie file, let Mr. Morris see the 
Currie file, the 201 or any other file you have on it? 

Colonel Church. Intelligence files? 

Senator Ferguson. Any file you have on Laugliliu Currie. 

Colonel Church. We woiildn't normally have a 201 file. 

Senator Ferguson. No; l)ecause he wasn't in the military service. But how 
about the intelligence file? You may find this whole Field thing in the Currie file. 

Colonel Church. We will search that file. 

Mr. Morris. One other thing, and I have spoken to some of the Senators on 
this. Will you give us a report on your search in about 30 days? Don't let it go 
much longer than that. We will have to come to some sort of a conclusion, and 
you have been given as much time as possible. But maybe 30 days more would 
be helpful. 

Colonel Church. All right. Say by the 10th of February. 

Mr. Morris. That would be fine. 

Senator Ferguson. Thank you very much. 

(Whereupon, at 10: 55 a. m.. the subcommittee recessed subject to call.) 

Mr. Morris. ]\Ir. Mandel, I ask you if you will identify this letter 
for us, please. 

Mr. Mandel. This is a carbon copy of a letter which was taken 
from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations dated August 1, 
1040, addressed to Frederick V. Field, Esq., with the typed signature 
of Edward C. Carter. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, can you recall having received that letter? 
Here are extra copies [handling to witness]. Will you read it aloud, 
Mr. Field ? 

TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK V. FIELD. ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
COUNSEL, HAROLD CAMMER— Resumed 

Mr. Field (reading) : 

Exhibit No. 639 

Sunset Farm, 
Lee, Mass., October 1, 19J,0. 

Dear Fred : I have been wondering how your resignation and your new job 
can be announced both constructively to the board and membership of the Ameri- 
can Council and most constructively for the purposes of you yourself and your 
new enterprise. 

There is much in your new program that should appeal to the vast majority 
of the meml)er.s of the American Council. I wonder whether it isn't better for 
Jessup or me to consider an announcement which will put your new work in its 
appropriate setting instead of having the American Council members one by one 
get garbled, prejudiced, and hostile accounts. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4075 

You have doubtless seen the very stimulating proposal that Robert S. Lynd 
has made to the Earle Committee for a study of the potentialities of democratic 
process in a period of mobilization. You yourself, either in your former or 
your new capacity, might have drafted a very similar outline. You are probably 
familiar with a somewhat similar but less ambitious proposal being worked on 
by Raymond Gram Swing, Arthur Upham Pope, and others, proposing that for 
the stupid morale work carried on in the American Army during the last war, 
a totally different program be adopted in the Army for maintaining and deepening 
democratic process. 

Would you care to draft something for an announcement, or would you prefer 
to send me samples of all the mimeographed and printed material that APM has 
issued and have us prepare something? Naturally, I would prefer that you 
make the first draft if you approve of the idea at all. 

If we do something along this line it might refer to you alone, or your change 
might be included ina circular to the board describing a number of staff changes. 
This could include a description of Lockwood's work, of Lasker's, of far eastern 
journeys of Mr. and Mrs. Barnett, the coming of Miss Jorgenson and Miss 
Howie^in fact, a record of all staff changes. Which do you think would be 
the best procedure? 

Sincerely yours, 

• Edward C. Carter. 

Mv. IMoRRis. Do you recall receiving that letter? 

Mv. Field. No, I doivt, Mr. ]Morris. 

Mr. Morris. "Will that be received into the record? 

Senator O'Coxor. Yes. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 639*' and 
was read in full.) 

Mr. Morris. Did j^ou, as a matter of fact, in connection with the 
fourth paragraph there reading : 

Would you care to draft something for an announcement, or would you prefer 
to .send me samples of all the mimeographed and printed material that APM 
has issued and have us prepare something? 

Send samples of all APM material into Mr. Carter in connection with 
that suggestion ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will j^ou identify that, please? 

Mr. ]Mandel. This is an original of a memorandum from the files 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations dated December 2, 1940, headed 
"C. P. from E. C. C." and it is signed "C. P. and the initial "F." 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Field, is that your initial on that letter ^ [Handing 
to witness.] 

Mr. Field. It is just the penciled initial "F."' I haven't the slightest 
idea. 

Mr. Morris. Does the memorandum look familiar to you? 

Mr. Field. No, there is nothing familiar in it whatsoever. It 
doesn't look like it. Actually I make an "F" the other way around. 
I don't know what this is. I don't think it is my initial. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we not accept that into the 
i-ecord under the circumstances. 

Senator O'Conor. No. 

Mr. Morris. I have a batch of letters here 

Mr. Field. I would like to assert for the record that C. P. refers 
doubtless to the initials of the staff member in the Institute of Pacific 
lielations. 

Mr. Morris. I was making reference to the P. S. That was Cather- 
ine Porter, was it not? 

Mr, Field. It must be. 



4076 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. But we are making reference here to the P. S. on the 
letter with the initial "F." 

Mr. Chairman, we have about 40 letters which all relate to the partic- 
ular witness before us today. They are letters either sent by him or 
sent to him. In order to save time, I would like to have counsel and 
the witness look over that stack of letters, and if he will acknowledge 
either that lie was the author, or in reverse, that they were sent to him, 
1 would like them to go into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that if the witness and his attorney w ould look at them we 
will be able to save some time and not go through each individual 
letter. 

Senator O'Conor. May I suggest that in looking over them, if this 
will expedite matters, that they put in different piles, as to those which 
may be readily identified, and just judging from what has transpired, 
it may be that they will not be rememlDered by you, or otherwise they 
may. 

Mr. Morris. There is one in particular' I would like to ask you 
about. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like this inserted into the record. 

Mr. Mandel, will you identify that letter? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a telegram taken from the files of the Institute 
of Pacific Relations, addressed to Frederick V. Field and signed 
"Hilda." It is dated October 20, 1937. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember receiving that telegram, Mr. Field? 
[Handing to witness.] 

Mr. Field. I don't recall it specifically, no, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, it reads: 

ExHiBic No. 640 

Carter asks reprint his October Amerasia article, distribution editors, Con- 
gressmen, Cabinet ministers, institute countries. Suggest reprinting pamphlet 
form survey as is. Out today preparedness China-Japan rather than Amerasia. 
Not replacing pamphlet series. Please wire opinion and how finance 3,000 copies 
costing .$170. Thanks. Wired agenda also. China manuscript excellent. 

Si.gned "Hilda." 

Mr. Field, was it the practice of sending certain manuscripts and 
certain articles that appeared in Amerasia to various Congressmen 
and Cabinet ministers? Was it the practice of the IPR as far as 
you knew ? 

Mr. Field. Just speaking generally cm the question, the practice 
as far as I was concerned, what I could testify to, would have to do 
only with this country. 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Field. And I just Avould refer to the testimony I gave on that 
subject a little while ago — tliat we did on occasion circularize members 
of the Government and Members of the Congress, as well as persons 
in all other walks of life in this country whom we could reach. 

Senatoj" O'Conor. It will be inserted into the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 640'' and was read 
in full above.) 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mr. David Drucker? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously employed. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know his wife, Esther Drucker? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4077 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Do 3^ou know whether or not he has been an attorney 
for the Amtorg Corp. ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Was he an attorney for the corporation in which you 
had an interest? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Adam Von Trott ? 

Mr. Field. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a host of Adam. Von Trott in this country? 

]Mr. Field. A host in what sense ? 

Mr. Morris. I mean, did you have him at your home for dinner? 
Did vou take him to lunch ? What were your dealings with Adam Von 
Trott? 

Mr. Field. He attended one of the institute conferences, and I be- 
lieve the one that was held at Virginia Beach, in whatever year that 
was. It was during the early part of the war, wasn't it? You've got 
the year ; I forget. 

Mr. Morris. At Virginia Beach was the early part of the war. 

Mr. Field. It was before this country was in the war. It must have 
been late 1939. 

Mr. Morris. How often did you see him ? 

Mr. Field. I saw him primarily at that conference, and I imagine I 
saw him a few times in New York. 

Mr. Morris. Were you his host at luncheon or dinner ? 

Mr. Field. I might have been. I couldn't possibly remember. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Ludwig Rajchmann? 

Mr. Field. Before I answer that, could I identify him? Had he 
been a League of Nations adviser in China ? 

Mr. Morris. That is the one. 

Mr. Field. Yes, I did know him. 

Mr. Morris. "V^Hiat were your dealings with Ludwig Rajchmann ? 

Mr. Field. He was simply a man that I met on one of my trips to 
China. I had no dealings with him in any sense that I can remember. 
I remember sitting in a conversation, I have heard him talk, but I 
never had any personal dealings. 

Mr. Morris. What were the occasions of your sitting in conversa- 
tions with him and talking? 

Mr. Field. I have no clear recollection. At Shanghai, at the time I 
was there, a great deal of talk went on in the middle of the night at 
night clubs. I think he was working with Soong, T. V. Soong. I re- 
member it was the custom of JNIr. Soong and other Chinese officials 
to have late meetings in night clubs. I think it is possible at one of 
those sessions I was on. I don't have a clear recollection. 

Mr. Morris. When did you last see him ? 

Mr. Field. Mr. Rajchmann? I don't think I ever saw him except 
in China, which would have been in the early thirties. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Anthony Jenkinson ? 

Mr. Field. Yes ; I did. He stayed at my place. 

Mr. Morris. For what period of time ? 

88348— 52— pt. 12 4 



4078 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. I don't reiueniber how long a period of time. In the 
question of the housing shortage there was a period when he couldn't 
find an apartment of his own. He stayed at my place. 

Mr. Morris. For what duration? 

Mr. Field. I don't remember how long. 

Mr. Morris. Approximately? 

Mr. Field. Well, it was a good many weeks, I know that, and I don't 
remember exactly how long. 

Mr. Morris. Was he associated Avitli the Allied Labor News ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morris, on the 
same grounds previously used. 

Mr. JMoRRis. Now, did the Gellhorns, Walter and Kitty Gellhorn, 
stay at yoHr place at all? 

Mr. Field. It is possible that they used it, did use the house on oc- 
casion. I couldn't identify when. I knew them well. 

Mr. Morris. Did they register from your place at all? Do you 
know that? 

Mr. Field. No, I couldn't speak for myself on that. I couldn't tell 
you accurately there. There was a period when — I was trying to think 
why I wasn't using the house myself. I think they did. I just haven't 
got a clear recollection of that. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever collaborate with Archibald MacLeish in 
writing an article? 

Mr. Field. No. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know George C. Eltenton, the husband of Dolly 
Eltenton ? Do you know Dolly Eltenton ? 

Mr. Field. Well, that name strikes some recollection, but I cannot 
identify her at the moment. I don't remember. 

Mr. ^ToRRis. She was a staff worker in the IPR office in San Fran- 
cisco. 

Mr. Field. Not at the time I was there. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know George Eltenton ? 

Mr. Field. I don't think so. I don't believe I met him. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Abraham Chapman? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously employed. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Colonel Faymonville ? 

Mr. Field. I don't think I ever met him. 

Mr. Morris. You never met Colonel Faymonville? 

Mr. Field. I don't think so. If I did it would have been at such a 
large public gathering that I would have no recollection of it. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Charlotte Honig? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously employed. 

Mr. IVIoRRis. Now, did you ever meet Mv. Louis Budenz ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever met Vincente Lombard Tolidano? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever make an effort to create an interest on the 
part of Mr. Tolidano in the Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Field. May I consult with my attorney? 

Senator O'Coxor. Yes, indeed. 

(Mr. Field confers with his counsel.) 



f^ 



to 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4079 

Mr. Field. I have no recollection, Mr. Morris. It is possible that I 
did, but I have no recollection of anything. 

Mr. Morris. Did yon ever meet Harry Gannes? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously employed. 

Mr. Morris. Did 3'ou ever meet Mildred Price ? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
iirounds. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. Did you ever make a contribution to the China Aid 
Council ? 

Ml". Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you contribute $63,950 to the publication Soviet 
Russia Today between October 3, 1946, and April 28, 1950? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. It is not that I am giving you a figure and taxing your 
memory. 

Mr. Field. No, I decline to answer on the grounds to do so might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a stockholder of the Trade Union Service? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
irrounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever contribute to the Chinese Laimdrymen's 
Association ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds, 
Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know whether the Chinese Laundrymen's Asso- 
ciation was connected with the New China Daily New^s ? 

Mr. Field. No ; I have no knowledge of that. 

Mr. Morris. You have no knowledge of that. Are you acquainted 
with the North American Trade Consultants, of 150 Broadway, which 
shares office space with AVCO ? Are you acquainted with the xVVCO 
International Corp.? 

Mr. Field. What was the first name there? The North American 
Trading 

Mr. Morris. Let me put it this way : Were you vice president and 
treasurer of the AVCO International, Inc.? 

Mr. Field. May I consult ? 

(Mr. Field confers with his counsel.) 

Mr. Field. That first, that North American whatever it was, I don't 
recall at all. With the second one I did have such an association. 

Mr. Morris. You were vice president and treasurer? 

Mr. Field. If those were the offices on record. I am sure I was an 
officer of it. 

Mr. Morris. What was the purpose of that company ?  

Mr. Field. A trading company. 

Mr. Morris. What did you trade in ? 

Mr. Field. We did no business whatsoever, as I recall. 

Mr. Morris. Who organized the company ? 

Mr. Field. That I don't remember the details of. 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember who the incoriDorators were, ]\Ir. 
Field? 

Mr. Field. The actual incorporators? No; I don't. 

Mr. Morris. AVho were the stockholders ? 



4080 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that 
to do so might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Morris. Who were the directors of the corporation ? 

]Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. You will testify you were the vice president and 
treasurer of the company ? 

Mr. Field. I was an officer of it ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Ernest Thornton in Australia ? 

Mr. Field. May I identify him? His name came up here in the 
testimony in the last week or so. I have read the name in the — — 

Mr. Morris. I don't think so. 

Mr. Field. Ernest Thornton ? 

Mr. Morris. Ernest Thornton. 

Mr. Field. This is somebody quite different, then. From 
Australia ? 

Mr. Morris. Australia. 

Mr. Field. I will have to decline to answer that question. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know a man named Carlos Contreros Labarca ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet with him on July 6, 1945, at 16 West 
Twelfth Street? 

Mr. Field. Who is this ? Carlos  

Mr. Morris. Carlos Contreros Labarca. 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer on the grounds that to do so might 
tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Tung Pi Wu ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Chang Han Fu and Chen Chia 
Kang, asistants to Tung Pi'Wu? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mr. Y. Y. Hsu ? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Hsu have dinner at the home of Mrs. Selali 
Chamberlain on April 30, 1945 ? 

Mr. Field. Mrs. who ? 

Mr. Morris- Chamberlain ; the first name is S-e-1-a-l-i. 

Mr. Field. It is S-e-1-l-a-h, Sellah. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Hsu have dinner at the home of Mrs. Chamber- 
lain on April 30, 1945, in your company ? 

Mr. Field. I don't recall that. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mr. Max Yergan ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you, Dr. Yergan, Chen, and Kang, assistants to 
Tung Pi Wu, have dinner together at the home of Charlotte Honig 
in New York City, 320 West Eighty-third Street, in 1945 ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Were you associated with the organization, Committee 
for Democratic Far Eastern Policy ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you and Eugene Dennis propose that Grace 
Granich pinch-hit and run the Committee for Democratic Far Eastern 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4081 

Policy until such time as they would get more respectable names to 
run that organization ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you give checks in the amount totaling $610 to 
Mr. Y. Y. Hsu on March 19, 11)16, and July 19, 1946 ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know where Mr. Hsu is now? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Were you connected with the American Chinese Ex- 
port Co., of 51 Pine Street? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Was Charlotte Honig vice president of that corpora- 
tion? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Saul Mills ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Was Saul Mills associated with you in the American 
Chinese Export Co. ? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you give Saul Mills on March 22, 1950, $4,000 ? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you give him $2,000 on May 15, 1950? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question also on the the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Was Martin Popper the secretary of the American 
Chinese Export Co. ? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Is Mr. Popper a member of the Sunnyside branch of 
the Communist Party in Queens? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet a man by the name of J-u-a-n, the 
next part of the name is M-a-r-i-v-e-i-1-I-i, and the next name is 
V-i-d, and the last part of his name is A-u-r-i-e-a, who is president 
of the Chuman Communist Party? I will read that again. The 
first name is J-u-a-n, the next part of his name is M-a-r-i-v-e-i-1-l-i, 
the next part of his name is V-i-d, and the next part A-u-r-i-e-a. 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet with him on April 10, 1946 ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the same grounds. 

Mr. Chairman, may I just say a word, that I have endeavored, and 
I wish to continue, to answer as fully as I can any questions pertain- 
ing to the Institute of Pacific Relations, but I feel that in self-pro- 
tection I must decline to answer questions that go far astray from 
this particular matter. 

Senator O'Conor. Mr. Field, let me ask you just a few questions 
along that line that might be a little closer, and they pertain to the 
library. I think that was located at 26 West Twenty-sixth Street, 
was it ? 

Mr. Field. Of the Institute of Pacific Relations ? 

Senator O'Conor. No; of yours. 



4082 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. My own library? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes. 

Mr. Field. Yes; that is right; 23 West Twenty-sixth Street. 

Senator O'Conor. 23 West Twenty-sixth Street. Did you know 
Israel Epstein ? 

Mv. Field. May I confer? 

Senator O'Conor. Yes, indeed. 

(Mr. Field conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Field. I must decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Senator O'Conor. Did you know Edgar Snow ? 

Mr. Field. I also decline to answer that question on the same 
grounds. 

Senator O'Conor. And you have previously testified concerning 
Owen Lattimore? 

Mr. Field. Yes; I knew him. 

Senator O'Conor. Now, with regard to the publications of each of 
those three individuals, I would like to just ask you a few questions. 
One, the book entitled "Unfinished Eevolution in China" by Israel 
EpsteiiL Do you know of such a book? 

Mr. Field. Yes ; I did know of such a book. 

Senator O'Conor. And do you know of Red Star Over China by 
Edgar Snow? 

Mr. Field. Yes. 

Senator O'Conor. Third, Solution in Asia by Owen Lattimore? 

Mr. Field. Yes ; I know of such a book. 

Senator O'Conor. I would not expect you to know all tlie books in 
the librai-y, but do you know whether those books were included in 
the library? ^ 

Mr. Field. Well, in other woi-ds, whether I own those books? Is 
that your question ? 

Senator O'Conor. Well, if you desire. 

Mr. Field. I should like to explain, sir, that the library at 23 West 
Twenty-sixth Street is my personal library. 

Senator CConor. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Field. 1 own tlie books there. So your question is whether I 
own these three books you have mentioned. 

Senator O'Conor. Well, you may answer, if that is your desire, on 
that question. Mine was not directed to that particularly, but I will 
ask the question as long as you put it that way. 

Mr. Field. I have, I do own Lattimore's l)ook. and I think I have 
Snow's. I offhand don't think I happen to have the other one, Ep- 
stein's book. 

Senator O'Conor. The point to which I was directing the ({uestion 
was as to whether or not a library as such was made available to any 
particular groups or to the public generally, or was it restricted in 
its use ? 

Mr. Field. No; it is a library which adjoins my office in a large — 
just adjoining my personal office, Avhich is a personal office. And I 
simply had a policy of leaving the door open, and I don't think I have 
ever tlu-own anybody out of the ]dace. I have never gone into any 
special efforts to get anybody into it, but anyone who Avanted to consult 
the books on the premises could do so. I have had a policy of not per- 
mitting people to take books out. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4083 

Senator O'Conor. I see. Was there any standing arrangements, to 
your knowledge, Avhereby members of any particular groups would 
have access to it and would be admitted and have the run of it 'i 

Mr. Field. No; no groups as distinguished from any other groups. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, in connection with this line of ques- 
tions, I grant you that some of these questions and the association with 
some of these people with the Institute of Pacific Relations are at best 
marginal, but under ideal conditions the purpose of this investigation 
would be to find out whether or not these people were actually con- 
nected with Mr. Field's work in the Institute of Pacific Relations. 
I grant you in some cases that may not be the case, but we should 
have answers from Mr. Field to find out whether in fact they are or not. 

Certainly, Mr. Y. Y. Hsu, about whom we have been talking, was 
connected with the Institute of Pacific Relations, and Mr. Adam Von 
Trott was connected with the institute. 

]\Ir. Field. I replied with respect to him. 

Mr. ]MoRRis. I have a series of questions; the next five are connected 
with Mr. Von Trott. I grant you that it may be unfair to the Institute 
of Pacific Relations to continue this line of inquiry, but since we have 
a witness here we would like to find out whether or not there is any 
connection with these people. It may well be that the answer is ''No,'" 
but we do not alwaj's get that answer from a witness. 

Mr. Field. The problem, Mr. Chairman, for the witness, or a wit- 
ness, at least, in my position, is that, while wanting to answer all 
questions possible, to protect myself from opening up a particular line 
and waiving the privilege, I have had that disastrous experience, and 
I have suffered from it, and I don't want to repeat it, and therefore 
I am somewhat zealous in attempting to protect myself. This is the 
problem : If I was assured of the complete^ line of questioning on any 
particular person or line that Mr. Morris 'wanted to open up, it cer- 
tainly would be something to consider. 

Senator O'Coxor. I does occur to me that it might be desirable for 
you to indicate the scope of the inquiry ; and, if it is in a limited area 
\n which the witness feels that he may go without jeopardizing any 
rights, it may be that it would be productive of results if it is indi- 
cated that it is just to be encompassed within a certain area. 

Mr. Morris. In connection with the matter that we have gone over. 
Senator, we have the episode of Tung Pi Wu's visit to the United 
States, which is important to this inquiry, who met Tung Pi Wu 
while he was in New York, and then whether or not any people asso- 
ciated with you in the Institute of Pacific Relations, Mr. Field, were 
in the Committee for Democratic Far Eastern Policy. 

Mr. Field. In that case, that would be a case where I clearly would 
feel it might tend to incriminate me, and I would have to invoke the 
privilege. 

Mr. Morris. How about any questions in connection with the Com- 
mittee for Democratic Far Eastern Affairs? 

Mr. Field. On that also I feel it would tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Morris. In connection with Charlotte Honig, was she associated 
with you in the Institute of Pacific Relations ( 

Mr. Field. Let me consult with my counsel. 

(Mr. Field conferred with his counsel.) 



4084 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. Let me answer that this way, Mr. Morris : To the best 
of my recollection, this person was in no way associated with me in 
connection with the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. There we have an answer, Mr. Chairman. 

Now, did you have cocktails with Adam Von Trott on November 
28, 1939.? 

Mr. Field. I have no idea whatsoever. , 

Mr. Morris. Do you remember having cocktails with him? 

Mr. Field. How could I possibly remember ? It is 13 years ago. 

Mr. Morris. Can you remember his having cocktails with you ? 

Mr. Field. I can't. I told you that it is very likely that I knew 
him. I had seen him in New York. Whether we had cocktails or 
steaks or what, I haven't the slightest idea. 

Mr. Morris. Is it consistent with your recollection that you met 
him five time in New York in 1939 ? 

Mr. Field. I will grant vou that it is auite conceivable. 

Mr. Morris. When did you last hear of Mr. Von Trott? 

Mr. Field. When did I last hear of him ? The last I heard of him 
was when he was executed in Germany. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Harrison George ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously stated. 

Mr. Morris. I cite that as an example of the difficulty that we have. 

Mr. Field. May I say on this point, I think perhaps I could antici- 
pate. I can give the same rex^ly that I did with respect to the other 
person. 

Mr. Morris. Charlotte Honig? 

Mr. Field. That is right, that I recall no association that I had with 
this person in connection with the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we have had evidence that Harrison 
George in 1931 did have a discussion with Mr. Browder in connection 
with the Institute of Pacific Relations, and therefore it would be only 
plausible if we know that Mr. Field clid know Mr. Harrison George 
that we should ask him if he had any connection with the Institute of 
Pacific Relations, and he has answered that he had not. 

Mr. Field. And I repeat the answer in light of w4iat you have said. 

Senator O'Conor. You want to repeat the question ? 

Mr. Field. I repeat the answer after the additional remarks that 
Mr. Morris has made. 
. Mr. Morris. You appreciate the difficulty of conducting examina- 
tion into an area w'here you do not know whether or not the people 
are going to be connected with the institute, people whom you do as a 
matter of fact know that he was associated w4th. 

You understand that, Mr. Field, and you appreciate the difficulty. 
We want to be fair here to the institute. 

Mr. Field. On the question of Mr. Harrison ? 

Mr. Morris. Harrison George. 

Mr. Field. Harrison George. It seems to me I have been responsive 
insofar as stating definitely, categorically, that I had no association 
with him in connection with the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. We appreciate that, and yet at the same time, Mr. Field, 
you must know that if we have evidence before this committee that 
there was a connection between Harrison George and the institute and 
at the same time we have reason to believe that you knew Harrison 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4085 

George, it is only a fair question and we should ask you if there is any 
connection there. 

Mr. Field. I don't deny your absolute right to any question. I am 
not appraising that issue. 

Mr. Morris. We have had a conflict, Mr. Field, in the evidence be- 
fore this committee as to whether or not you used the name Frederick 
Spencer or Lawrence Hearn in writing for China Today. Would you 
clear up that conflict for us? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds pre- 
viously used. 

Mr.*^MoRRis. Did you know Mr. T. A. Bisson ? 

Mr. Field. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Morris. Was he associated with the publication China Today ? 

Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question — I will take that back 
and reply to you differently. I think the publication itself will show 
whether or not he wrote articles for the magazine. I think it is likely 
that he did, but I couldn't possibly recall a specific article. 

Mr. INIoRRis. You do not recall 

Mr. Field. As a matter of fact, he may have been on the editorial 
board at a certain period. Again the masthead will show it and I 
will stand by it. 

Mr. Morris. You do not know whether he used a pseudonym on that 
publication ? 

Mr, Field. I have no knowledge of that, that he ever did. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that he ever used the name Frederick 
Spencer ? 

Mr. Field. No, I cannot testify to anything Mr. Bisson did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever hear that he did ? 

Mr. Field. I have no reason — I have no knowledge of this. 

Senator O'CoxoR. May I ask how much more you have ? 

Mr. Morris. I am finished now. 

Senator O'Coxor. There does remain the one matter of the identi- 
fication of the letters in the interrogation. I was wondering whether 
that will probably take some time. 

Off the record. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Senator O'Cox^or. At this point the hearing will be recessed. 

Mr. Morris. We will have a short session this afternoon. 

Senator O'Coxor. We will recess this hearing until then. 

(Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., the committee was recessed, to be re- 
convened at 2 p. m. the same day.) 

AFTERXOOX" SESSION 

Senator O'Coxor. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. Morris. Let the record show that this is an open hearing and 
that Mr. Field has come back, having gone through all of the exhibits 
that we presented to him at the termination of the last session which 
closed at about 12 : 30. 

Mr. Field, have you gone through the exhibits that I have presented 
to you ? 

Mr. Field. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Do they appear to you to be copies of letters that were 
written to you and written by you in connection with your duties in 
the Institute of Pacific Eelations? 



4086 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Field. In your absence, Mr. Morris, I dictated, or, rather, I 
will put it this way : I divided these documents into four groups, and 
then dictated my evidence with respect to each of the four groups, and 
1 would suggest that what I have already dictated be incorporated 
now as my evidence wdth respect to them. 

Mr. Morris. He has explained it on the record. Senator. 

Senator O'Coxor. That is what I had originally intended after you 
had seen the letters, to suggest such a course as that, because I felt they 
might fall into several categories, and by segregating them according 
to whether or not they were certain or doubtful or otherwise it might 
simplify the handling of it. 

Mr. Field. Could I just add that I did this in the presence of 
your associate counsel? 

Senator O'CoxoR. Good. 

(The testimony dictated that was above referred to is as follows :) 

I\Ir. Field. Mr. Morris, I have reviewed the batch of letters and memoranda 
which yon gave to me and divided them into fonr gronps. The first gronp pnr-' 
ports to be memoranda signed by me as follows : A carbon of a letter dated 
October 11, 1938, from San Francisco, to Miss Nettie Duskis. A carbon of a 
letter dated .Tuly 26, 19,37, to Miss Susan T. Smith, attached to which is a letter 
from Susan T. Smith to me dated July 12. 19.37, and a list of books. 

A letter dated June IG, 1937, to Mr. T. A. Bissou. A letter dated October 11, 
1938, to Miss Margaret R. Taylor. A letter dated November 9, 1937. to Miss 
Catherine Porter. A letter dated March 29, 1938, to Edward C. Carter. A 
letter dated November 15, 1937, to Mr. Theodore Draper, attached to which is 
data concerning Mr. Draper's application for a Guggenheim Fellowship, and a 
letter of November 9, 1937, to Mr. Draper. 

A letter dated March 10, 1938, to Mi-. Edward C. Carter. A memorandum 
dated July 24, 1939, to "RS, MSF, KB. MRT. HA. WWL." 

Letter dated March 23, 1942, to Mr. Edward C. Carter attached to which 
is a letter dated March 3, 1942, from Edward C. Carter to Frederick "V. Field 
and a letter dated March 12, 1942, from Edward C. Carter to Mr. John A. Pollard. 

Letter dated May 4, 1933, to Mrs. Ruth Young. Telegram dated November 23 — 
no year but bearing the notation "Estimated 1942" to Edward C. Carter. 

Memorandum to "CP from FYF" dated February 23. 1937, and "FVF from 
CP" being probably Catherine Porter. 

Letter dated August 23, 1934 to Newton D. Baker. Letter dated April 20, 1933, 
to Mr. Loomis, attached to wliicli is a memorandum dated May 2, 1933, to Mr. 
Loomis from an unidentified person, apparently other than myself. 

Memorandum dated January 22. 1940. to "BL." 

Letter dated July 2G, 1937, to Nathaniel Peffer. 

Letter dated September 4, 1935, to Mr. Owen Lattimore. 

Letter dated April 22, 1940, to Mr. Owen Lattimore. 

Letter dated March 17, 1938, to Mr. Edward C. Carter. 

Letter dated March 17, 1938, to Mr. Carter. 

Letter dated January 31, 1938, to Miss Catherine Poi-ter. 

Letter dated December 17, 1934, to Mr. E. C. Carter. 

Letter dated October 4, 1934, to Mr. Lawrence Dugcan. 

Letter dated October 9, 1939, to Mr. Edward C. Carter. 

Letter dated May 15. 1940. to Mr. Owen Lattimore. 

Letter dated April 25, 1939, to Mr. Carter. 

Letter dated May 31, 1940, to Mr. John II. Oakie. 

Letter dated April 9, 1940, to Mr. Philo W. Parker. 

Letter dated December 20, 1938, to the American League for Peace and 
Democracy. 

Memorandum dated April 11, 1939, to "AB." attached to which is a letter to the 
State Department from Annette Blumenthal. 

Letter dated November 10, 193G, to General Victor Yakhontoff, attached to 
which is a letter dated November 3, 1936, from Robert T. Crane to Frederick V. 
Field, attached to which is a letter to Dr. Robert T. Crane from Frederick V 
Field dated November 2, 1936. 

Almost all of the foregoing letters are carl)ons or photostats of carbons of 
letters. I do not have any present recollection of having sent these letters, 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4087 

although from their contents I would assume that they were sent as they 
appear to have been to the persons whose names appear thereon, but I do not 
presently remember them. Except where I have indicated otherwise each of 
the letters and memoranda referi'ed to in the first group appear to have been 
sent by me. 

The second group of letters and memoranda appear or purport to be letters 
or memoranda to me from other persons as follows : 

Memorandum dated November 6, 1939, to FVF from ECC. 

Letter dated September 7, 1937, from Edward ('. Carter to which is attached 
a cable dated August 25, 1937, from Carter to INPAKEL, New York. 

Letter dated March 4, 1936, from Edward C. Carter, to which is attached 
a telegram from "Fred" to Edward C. Carter dated March 2, 1936. 

Memorandum from Liu Yu-wan to F. V. Field, E. C. Carter, E. J. Tarr, P. C. 
Jessup, dated November 21, 1939. 

Letter dated January 4, 1935, from Edward C. Carter. 

Memorandum dated October 27, 1944, from Raymond Dennett to Philip C. 
Jessup, William C. Johnstone, Frederick V. Field, and Rose Yardumian. 

Letter dated January 12, 1937, from Owen Lattimore. 

Memorandum or letter dated March 9, 1943, from Edward C. Carter. 

Letter dated May 2, 1940, from Charles F. Loomis. 

Memorandum dated March 20, 1939, from "ECC." 

Letter dated July 2, 1937, from Charles F. Loomis. 

Letter dated December 4, 1934, from Everett Case. 

Letter dated October 7, 1937, from William W. Lockwood, Jr. 

Letter dated July 16, 1934, from Edward C. Carter. 

Memorandum entitled "Excerpts From Letter to Frederick V. Field From 
Newton D. Baker, Dated August 6, 1934 (Cleveland, Ohio)." 

Letter dated April 29, 1939, from Edward C. Carter. 

Letter dated March 20, 1939, from Earl H. Leaf, to which is attached by 
clipping an onionskin report entitled "The Attached Report, Compiled and 
Written by the Shanghai Branch of the British Army Intelligence Service, Is 
Strictly Confidential." 

Letter dated August 12, 1938, from Kathleen Barnes. 

An onionskin copy of what appears to be a resolution unanimously adopted 
by the American Council in appreciation of the work of Frederick V. Field, 
undated. 

Letter dated October 11, 1938. from Owen Lattimore. 

Almost all of the foregoing are unsigned carbons or photostats of unsigned 
carbons of letters purpoi'ting to have been sent 1)y the persons whose names 
appear thereon to me except where indicated utherwise. and except that the 
letter which the cimfidential report of the British Army Intelligence Service is 
now attached by clip does not contain any reference to such confidential report. 
Except for such confidential report I have no present recollection of ever having 
received the letters referred to in this second group. However, I am entirely 
willing to assume that they were sent by the persons indicated thereon and 
received by me. As to the confidential reixtrt, I am quite sure that I have never 
previously seen it, and am unwilling to make that assumption. 

The third group of communications which I have examined — and I have ex- 
amined all of them hastily and within limited time, as you know — purport to be 
letters sent bv me as follows : 

Letter dated March 4, 1943. 

Letter dated July 3, 1940. 

Letter dated August 27, 1938, to which attached a letter dated August 22, 
1938. 

A letter dated September 1, 1988, to which is attached a letter dated August 
25, 1938. 

A letter dated April 12, 1938. 

A letter dated December 5, 1940. 

A telegram dated March 11, 1938. 

A memorandum dated January 12, 1938. 

The foregoing letters which I have examined appear to be in substantially 
the same form as the other letters, that is, photostats or carbons in the main. 
As to these letters I must respectfully decline to answer in the exercise of my 
privilege against self-incrimination. 

The fourth group of letters puriport to be letters sent to me, or memoranda 
sent to me by various persons bearing the following dates : 



4088 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

March 9, 1937 ; March 16, 1936 ; March 23, 1935 ; July 1, 1940 ; March 30, 1937, 
attached to which purports to be a letter from me dated March 9, 1937, and a 
letter dated March 6, 1937 ; IMarch 30, 1938, to which it attached another letter 
dated March 30, 1938 ; letter dated April 26, 1938, to which is attached a memo- 
randum dated April 2G, 1938 ; a letter dated October 15, 1937 ; a letter dated 
March 24, 1938; a letter dated September 22, 1937,' to which is attached a 
memorandum of four pages undated ; a letter dated June 4, 1938. 

As to the fourth group of letters and memoranda I respectfully decline to 
answer in the exercise of my privilege against possible self-incrimination. 

Senator O 'Conor. I might also say just for the record that all of 
the proceedings, including, of course, this hearing as well as the 
examination and segregation of the papers all happened in the pres- 
ence of Mr. Field's counsel. 

Mr. Morris. Yes ; and Mr. Haaser. 

Do you have any objection to introducing any of these in the public 
record ? 

Mr. Field. There is a group of those I claim the privilege on. 

Senator O'Conor. It would be understood that any in respect to 
which you claim the privilege would, of course, not therefore be 
chargeable to you. 

Mr. Field. I have nothing to do with those. 

Senator O'Conor. Of course, they will be received in evidence if 
they are originally records from the Institute of Pacific Relations. 

Mr. Morris. That is right. The question was directed more to: 
Do you have any reason to believe that they are not authentic records ? 

Mr. Field. I have claimed the privilege on those particular docu- 
ments, and therefore I don't think I can make any comments. 

Senator O'Conor. With regard to that particular class there would 
be nothing imputed to Mr. Field in regard to that one group in con- 
nection with which he does claim his privilege. The rest of them, I 
understand, are authenticated. 

Mr. Field. We divided them into four groups. Two groups were 
divided as to whether they were addressed to me or whether I ad- 
dressed them to others, in which I had no specific recollection of a 
document but was willing to assume that they were documents so ad- 
dressed to me or sent by me. And the tliird and fourth groups were 
documents similarly divided to which I claim the privilege. 

Senator O'Coxor. Very well. 

Mr. Morris. Mv. Chairman, may all of these documents be received 
into the record ? 

Senator O'Conor. They will be, if, as I understand is the case, they 
are all part of the records taken from the Institute of Pacific Rela- 
tions files or records. 

Mr. Morris. That will be subject to Mr. jSIandel's identification. 

Senator O'Coxor. That is right. I want to attach that condition 
so as to be sure they are traceable to that source. 

(For Mr. Mandel's identification see p. 4158.) 

(The documents referred to are as follows and were marked with 
exhibit numbers, as follows:) 

Group I : Nos. 641, 642, 643, 644, 645, 646, 647, 648, 649, 650. 651, 652, 653, 654, 655, 
656, 657, 658, 659, 660, 662, 663, 664, 665, 660, 667, 668, 66!), 670, 671, 672. 

Group II : Nos. 673, 674 675, 676, 677, 678, 679, 680, 681, 682, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 
688, 689, 6L!0, 691, 692. 

Group III : Nos. 693, 694, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699. 

Group IV : Nos. 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4089 

Exhibit No. 641 

(Handwritten:) Duskis 

San Fbancisco, October 11, 1938. 
Miss Nettie Duskis, 

Science atid Society, 30 East 20th Street, 

New York City. 

Dear Miss Duskis : I liave just returned to my office and find your letter of 
Septenil)er 16th. As my secretary wrote you, I liave already reviewed Bisson's 
.Japan In China. I happen to think it is the most important single book which 
has appeared on the war and very much hope that you will find a first-rate 
reviewer and give it good space. The only suggestion which comes to me off- 
hand is Nathaniel Peffer at Columbia. I happened to discuss the book with him 
at luncheon last week when I was East and thought that his comments were very 
interesting. Perhaps I suggest him because his impression of the book is very 
much the same as mine. 
Sincerely yours, 

FREDEBICK V. FiBXLD. 

f/g 



Editors: Edwin Berry Burgiim (New York University), V. J. McGill (Hunter College), 
Margaret Schlaueh (New Yorli University), Bernard J. Stern (Columbia University), 
D. J. Struik (Massacliusetts Institute of Technology). Foreign Editors: J. D. Bernal 
(Cambridge University), Maurice Dobb (The Marshall Library, Cambridge), Lancelot 
Hogben, F. R. S. (University of Aberdeen), Paul Langevin (College de France, Paris), 
H. Levy (Imperial College of Science, London), H. J. Muller (Institute of Genetics, 
Moscow), Joseph Needhara, F. R. S. (Cambridge University). Contributing Editors: 
J. W. Alexander, Francis Birch, Louis B. Boudin, Theodore B. Brameld, Dorothy Brew- 
ster, Ralph J. Bunche, Kenneth Burke, Addison T. Cutler, E. Franklin Frazier, Louis 
Harap, Granville Hicks, Eugene C. Holmes, Leo Huberman, Corliss Lamont, Oliver 
Larkin. Robert Morss Lovett, H. F. Mins, Jr., Broadus Mitchell, Fulmer Mood, Brooks 
Otis, Herbert J. Phillips, David Ramsey, Samuel Sillen, Harry C. Steiometz, D. J. Struik, 
Paul M. Sweezy, Genevieve Taggard, Louis Weisner 

Science & Society 
A Marxian Quarterly 
30 East 20th Street 



new YORK, N. Y. 
Gramercy 7-1021 



September 16, 1938. 



Mr. ITrederick Field, 

1195 California Street, San Francisco, California. 
Dear Mr. Field: We are very eager to have you review Bisson's book on 
Japan in China. If by any chance you have reviewed it for another periodical 
will you please recommend a person who will do an adequate job as we are 
anxious to see it well reviewed. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Nettie Duskis, 

Nettie Duskis, Secretary. 

San Francisco, September 20, 1938. 
Miss Nettie Duskis, 

Science and Society, 30 East 20th Street, j. 

New York City. 
Dear Miss Duskis: This is to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
September 16th to Mr. Field. Unfortunately, this has arrived during Mr. Field's 
absence from San Francisco. Upon his return in about ten days it will be 
brought to his attention promptly. 

For your information I may add that Mr. Field's review of Japan In China 
has appeared in the current nitmber of Pacific Affairs. 
Sincerely yours, 



Secretary to Mr. Field. 



4090 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 642 

July 26, 1937. 
Mi.ss Susan T. Smith, 

Berkeley Public Lihrary, Berkeley, Calif. 

Dear Miss Smith : I have heard from Mrs. Barnes that she was able to dis- 
cuss with you your book list ou Soviet Russia when she passed through the Bay 
Region two weeks ago. I have therefore consulted Miss Harriet Moore, who had 
already heard from Mrs. Barnes, regarding her own recommendations. I am 
enclosing tiie memorandum which Miss Moore has sent me rather than trying to 
paraphrase it. I hope that these comments will be of some help to you. 

There is only one point which I do not find included in Miss 3Ioore's memo- 
randum which I know she would like to have me pass on. We both feel, as do 
some of the others w^hom I have consulted, that Harry Stekoll's Humanity Made 
TO Order should l)e omitted from the list as it seems to so truly fall into the 
category of straiglit propaganda. I do not by any means want to suggest that 
we should not include in the book list critical references to what is going on in 
the Soviet Union, but it seems to me that the list includes plenty along that line 
without Stekoll's book, which seems to go a good deal further than merely 
being critical. 

Sincerely yours, 

Frederick Y. Field. 



Berkeley Public Lihrary, 
Berkeley, Calif., July 12, W^l. 
Mr. Frederick K. Field, 

In.'ititutc of Pacific Rclation.s-. }-2!> Past '>.2(l Street, 

Neio York City. 
Dear Mr. Field : The Library Committee of the Pacific Coast Branch of the 
Institute has been working for some time on a list on Russia for u.se in Libraries, 
similar to the ones we compiled on China and Japan. 

This has been much more difficult. We first planned to make a general list 
including old and new Russia. Our purpose is to select material that is in 
print, not too expensive, readily available for purchase and suited to the mind 
of the average reader. We were unable to choose twenty-five titles to cover 
the whole subject of Russia with any degree of comprehension. 

We then decided to concentrate on Soviet Russia, eliminating, if possible, 
books that were too markedly propagandist, for or against. The books we 
finally selected from about fifty read, are on the enclosed list. 

We are not satisfied with it and we didn't agree as a committee on some that 
were included, and some omitted. The list to me lacks balance and continuity. 
I talked ^^'ith Mrs. McLaughlin yesterday and she suggested I write to you and 
ask you to submit the list to Mrs. Katherine Barnes and Miss Harriet Moore 
for criticism and suggestions as to titles to be included. 

Will you return it so the committee may have your comments before August 
first. 

Yours sincerely, 

[s] Susan T. Smith, Librarian. 

P. S. — I have just heard that Mrs. Barnes is here in California and will be 
in my office Wednesday. I am sending the list just the same. (The P. S. is 
handwritten.) S. T. S. 

STS:M 
Enc. 



( Handwritten : ) MM to FVF 
(Handwritten :) July 24, 1937 

Comments on the Book List, Llbrary CoMMirrEE, Institute of Pacific 

Relations 

I agree with Mrs. Barnes suggestion that the following be included in the list 
John Reed— Ten Days that Shook the World 
General Grave.s — American Intervention in Siberia 
Zostchenko — Russia Laughs 
Duranty — Reports Russia 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4091 

These are to be substituted for : 

Skariatina — Little Era in Old Russia 
The works of Alexander Tusbkiu 
Feval — Tovarich 
Duranty — I Write as I please 
There are several aspects of Soviet life which are not covered in this list. 
I would suggest that there be added : M. S. Callott — Russian Justice, or if you 
want a more academic account, add : Zelitch — Soviet Administration of Criminal 
Law. 

There is also no book on Soviet medicine. The only comprehensive report on 
this at present is : Newsholme and Kingsbury — Red Medicine. This account is, 
perhaps, too uncritical to be included in your list. However, in the fall, a new 
book is to be published by Dr. Henry Sigerist of Johns Hopkins. This might 
be more suitable. 

The list omits all reference to foreign affairs. There are several good books 
on this subject : 

Louis Fischer — Soviets in World Affairs 

The Soviet Union in World Problems, edited by Samuel Harper 
Yakhontoff— Russia and the Soviet Union in the Far East 
Lobanov-Rostovsky — Russia and Asia 
Also these books may be heavier than most of those on your list, nevertheless, 
it seems essential to include something on foreign relations. 

There are also one or two other books of a general nature which might be 
interesting: 

Louis Fischer — Soviet Journey, a well-written and interesting travel book 

by a sympathetic observer 
Sholokhov — Soil Upturned (Seeds of Tomorrow), sequel to "And Quiet Flows 
the Don" 
Anyone of a number of the Maurice Hindus books on Soviet agriculture would 
be an addition, as your list is very weak in regard to agriculture, as well as 
industry. Unfortunately there is no book on Soviet industry which would meet 
your requirements, although there are several Soviet novels picturing industrial 
development. These however, might seem to you to be too biased. 



Telephone : Murray Hill 2-0313 Cable Address : Amruseult 

The American Russian Institute 

For Cultural Relations With the Soviet Union, Inc., 
Fifty-Six West Forty-Fifth Street, New York 

Board of Directors : Harrv Elmer Barnes, Mrs. Kathleen Barnes, Aaron Bodansky, Harold 
Clurman. Mrs. Ethel Clyde, George S. Counts, Mrs. Vera Mieheles Dean, John Dewey, 
Wui. O. Field, Jr., Lewis Gannett. Mortimer Graves, Wm. S. Graves, Alcan Hirsch, John 
A. Kingsbury, Marv van Kleeck, Wm. W. Lancaster, William. Lescaze, Robert Littell, 
Harriet Moore, William Allen Neilson, Mrs. George F. Porter, Raymond Robins, Geroid 
T. Robinson. John Rothschild, Whitney Seymour. Lee Simonson, Graham R. Taylor, 
Frederick Tilney, S. A. Trone, Allen W^ardwell, Richard Watts, Jr., Maurice Wertheim. 
Avrahm Yarmolinsky, Mrs. Efrem Zimbalist 

Executive Secretary : Virginia Burdick 
Editor : Harriot Moore 

July 23, 1937. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East 52d Street, Neto York City. 

Dear Fred : I just noticed that your Library Committee wants this list returned 
for the first, so I am sending it to you post haste. 

Kathleen has sent me in detail her corrections and additions with which I 
agree. I will make a few other suggestions on this list. 

I find it a little difficult to be civil about the list because it is so obviously 
biased under the cloak of being unbiased, but under the circumstances I suppose 
I should be glad that the books which the branded "propaganda" are included 
in the list at all. Therefore I will make no comment on the list which you can 
forward to Miss Smith. But if you have any way of influencing Miss Smith, I 
would suggest that you get the StekoU book removed as it is by far the worst. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Harriet Moore 
Harriet Moore. 
HM : KB 



4092 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 643 

June 16, 1937. 
Mr. T. A. BissoN, 

g/o Islorth China, Language School, Peiping. 
Dear Art : Many thanks indeed for your letter, which I have shared with Chi. 
Wliat you have to say is of very great help and has strengthened Chi in his 
decision to delay his acceptance of the job in China for a few months. He had 
after all definitely agreed to assist in the editing of a large study of the economic 
history of China and he could not very well go away without first obtaining a re- 
lease from that .iob. This he cannot look into for another two or three months. 
How are tilings going with you and your family? You don't know how much 
I envy your being in the Far East. Your article, which as you doubtless have 
already seen we pul)lished in the last issue of Amerasia, was a swell job, particu- 
larly as it was written before the Diet elections. It is going to be difficult to get 
as good analyses of the Konoye Cabinet because it does not lend itself to such 
clear-cut interpretation as did the Hayashi group. Nevertheless we are looking 
around for what we can find. I hope you will be sending us a piece on China 
pretty soon. Through printing first-hand reports we can perform a pretty im- 
portant job in keeping people accurately informed and their minds working 
along fruitful channels. 
With best regards, 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 
280 Chin Yo Hutang— (Handwritten). 



Exhibit No. 644 



Officers : Carl L. Alsberg, Chairman ; Wallace M. Alexander, Vice Chairman ; Miss Ada L. 
Comstock, Vice Chairman ; Philip C. Jessup, Vice Chairman : Benjamin H. Kizer. Vice 
Chairman ; Ray Lyman Wilbur, Vice Chairman ; Frederick V. Field, Secretary, Charles J. 
Rhoads, Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austern, Assistant Treasurer 

american council 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

1795 California Street, San Francisco; Telephone: Tuxedo 3114 — 129 East 52d Street, 

New York Cltv : Telephone : Plaza 3-4700 
Cable : INPARBL 

San Francisco, October 11, 1938. 
( Handwritten : ) 

Miss Margaret R. Taylor, 

129 East 52d Street, Neiv Yorl; City. 

Dear Margaret: Here is a letter to INIarion Paschal, Doris Duke Cromwell's 
secretary. The Cromwell entourage arrived in New York, as I recall, by plane 
shortly before I left for the West and, restless as Doris is reputed to be, I should 
think there was a fairly good chance that they were still there. Will you be 
so good as to fill in Paschal's address which can be found in my files and mail the 
letter along with the Farley pamphlet? There should also be in my files her 
office telephone number w'hich cost me six or seven cocktails to obtain but which 
is now somewhere in our records. 

I really don't know what technique to suggest if you and Carter are able to get 
an appointment. Paschal is terrific over cocktails but whether that is the way 
to do business with her I don't know. It is apparently essential to get by her 
before Doris herself can be approached because she acts not only as secretary 
and financial advisor on gifts but also as companion and best friend. Both gals 
are evidently restless and romantic and are under the impression that they delve 
deep into American life by making occasional visits to boys' clubs, slums and 
settlements. I have talked with Paschal a good deal about Doris' terrible 
money problems, the problem being knowing what to do with her income and 
giving enough of it away to exactly balance the income tax schedules. I know 
that about two years ago they were seriously considering setting up a foundation 
but I don't think anything has come of that. At that time their main adviser 
was Edwin Embree, president of the Rosenwald Fund. Carter knows him and 
his peculiarities better than I do. He too, I should say, was a somewhat romantic 
figure but then so is the IPR so T don't see why we can't all get together. 

Finally, my ov\n advice is to make a perfectly frank and direct approach on 
this money question and to completely avoid maneuvering. I should also sug- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4093 

gest, if you get a hearing, liitting at a figure of about five thousand dollars for 
the first year on some specific project. I am glad to give you full authority to 
invent new projects as tlie occasion warrants. 
Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Fred 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 645 



Officers of San Francisco Bay Region Committee : Ray Lyman Wilbur, Chairman ; Mrs. 
Alfred McLaughlin, Vice Chairman ; Robert Gordon Sproul, Vice Chairman ; William F. 
Morrish, Treasurer ; John H. Oakes, Secretary 

Officers : Carl L. Alsberg, Vice Chairman : Wallace M. Alexander, Vice Chairman ; Miss 
Ada L. Comstocii, Vice Chairman ; Frederick \^. Field, Secretary ; Charles J. Rhoads, 
Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austern, Assistant Treasurer ; Carl L. Alsberg, Research Chairman 

american council 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

57 Post Street 

SAN FRANCISCO 

Telephone ExBrook 5089 

Cable Address : INPAREL 

(Handwritten:) Confidential. 

November 9, 1937. 
Miss Catherine Porter, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East 52nd Street, New York City, New York. 

Dear Catherine : I failed, I believe, to report to you a part of tlie conversation 
which Carter and I had with Miss Wallier of the Rockefeller Foundation two 
weeks ago. Miss Walker informed me that the Foundation was now prepai'ed 
to appoint some of the recipients of its international fellowships through the 
Foreign Policy Association, the Council on Foreign Relations, and ourselves. 
She wishes each of these organizations to find and call to the attention of the 
Foundation persons who they believe will be promising and in return tlie Founda- 
tion will permit the holder of the fellowship to work on the staff. I gathered 
that we could probably have two such persons. 

Coming west on the train, I ran over what I considered to be the best possibili- 
ties. These included Walter Radius of San Francisco, Norman Hauwell who is 
now an instructor at the University of Minnesota, Theodore Draper who is now on 
the staff of the New Alasscs, Ernest Hauser, and Lawrence K. Rosinger. In my 
own mind I have eliminated Rosinger from immediate consideration because I 
do not think he has developed sufficiently to work successfully with a staff and 
because, in any case, he should be encouraged to continue his concentration in 
languages (including an American pronunciation of English). Hanwell already 
being provided for, and the importance of having young persons of his ability in 
our universities, could also be temporarily eliminated. Perhaps we could consider 
him in another year. The other three, however, seem to me to be good candidates. 

I should add a few comments on Theodore Draper, wiiom none of the staff 
knows. The fact that he is on the board of the New Masses indicates that he is 
a Communist. Whether he is a member of the party or not I liaven't the least 
idea and I don't care. However, whether because of this connection be would 
not be well received by the Foundation is another matter. If you or Lockwood 
or someone else will look over the last eight or ten issues of the New Masses 
you will find a number of articles by Draper on the Far East. In several 
instances he has naturally overgeneralized in order to make his argument suitable 
for the magazine for wliich he was writing. Other articles, however, are more 
carefully written and represent, to my mind, a pretty shrewd interpretation. 
However, I don't think it is quite fair to judge a person from articles which he 
lias to write for a popular magazine any more than I should like to have my 
candidacy for the honorary degree from the University of Hawaii, which I am 
still looking for, judged on the basis of my Amerasia pieces. 

I know Draper fairly well and have had a number of long talks with him. He 
is a little too aggressive and a little too dogmatic for many people's taste. On tbe 



88348—52— pt. 12- 



4094 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

other hand he strikes me as havinjr a first class mind and as being seriously 
interested in leaving journalism and concentrating on a long term study of the 
Far East, particularly as it ties up with the United States. He has recently 
written me as follows : 

"I have been in a quandary for some months now on my future course. For the 
past three years I have worked at some form of journalism which, while very 
productive and fruitful, became more and more irksome and undesirable. I am 
not altogether cut out for journalism in the sense that I cannot resist going into 
questions more deeply and extensively than a journalist can afford. The work 
requires a dispersion of efforts rather than a concentration. * * * Right now, 
I should like to spend a few years digging deeply." 

I am writing to Draper suggesting that he get in touch with either you or 
Lockwood so that you can meet each other. I am not telling him definitely about 
the availability of these Rockefeller fellowships because fur one thing I am not 
at all sure that he can qualify academically and for another I am not sure that 
you and I.ockwood would support my interest in him. I am writing him merely 
that I should like him to know some of my colleagues so that if some opportunity 
arises, we can help him find the sort of opportunity he is looking for. He and 
Lockwood will probably not agree on a single point with regard to the Far East, 
but the main point I would like from you both is your general impression of him. 

Radius seems to me in every re.spect a suitable candidate, in fact I have from 
the beginning put him at the top of this list. I find that he is anxious to return to 
more academic work after two years' experience with an investment firm and 
his academic record being excellent and his personality unusually favorable, 
thei'e is no question in my mind but that we can secure the fellowship for him. 
I shall try, in his case, to obtain sufficient traveling expenses in the fellowship to 
permit his remaining for part of the time in the New York office and the remainder 
Jiere. 

This leaves Hauser and here I find myself in a rather complicated position. 
I need your advice badly. The job I put up to him and hired him for in Septem- 
ber was definite and concrete. It was (a) to make an occupational analysis of 
the American Council members; (b) to take charge of Carter's itinerary for 
November and December ; (c) to bring American Council work to the attention of 
persons whom we could later approach for money; (d) to continue preparing 
our press releases, and (e) to cooperate in general staff work wherever possible. 
The only job available in our budget was the financial one and it was therefore 
necessary to make it clear that he had to justify his presence on the staff with 
respect to that aspect of his work. 

Although I didn't go into this fully in New York, it was quite apparent to me 
that Hauser was not making himself useful with regard to (a), (b). and (c) of 
the above list. The woi-k on Carter's itinerary had almost completely fallen on 
Hilda's shoulders and very little that I could see had been done in the direction 
of the other two items. 

I am not blaming Hauser entirely for this because it was clear from the be- 
ginning that he was not the most suitable person in the world to find for this sort 
of work. I thought, however, that in order to insure his own place on the staff he 
would break his neck in making good on these tasks. 

In view of the terms of his job, which I quite clearly described to him in con- 
versation, I would have no hesitancy in telling him that the arrangement had 
not worked out satisfactorily and that therefore we would have to drop him 
from the staff at the end of December. If you and the others agree with my 
analysis of what he has done, I would be perfectly justified in doing this. If I 
do so, I should, of course, give him plenty of time to look around for something 
else. It is very hard for me in planning next year's budget to see how I can 
possibly justify adding his salary to our research expenses. I am afraid that 
his presence oii the staff has to be in large part justified by his ability to advance 
our business connections. In that case, I would feel justified in putting him 
under the in-ovisions of a finance secretary. I am fully aware of the fact that 
we need all the good people we can have on the research side, but here, un- 
fortunately, we are strictly limited by the possibilities of our budget and these 
possibilities, I am afraid, we have already overreached. Please, therefore, take 
this up with others on the staff and send me at your early convenience your joint 
recommendations. 

Sincerely yours, 

[S] Fred. 

FbEDEEICK v. FlBXD. 

FVFrb 

P. S.— Please include Kate Barnes in any meeting with Draper.— FVF. 



I 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4095 

ExHiiUT No. 646 

San Fkancisco, March 29, 193S. 
Mr. Edwakd C. Carter, 
129 East 52nd Street, 

New York, New York. 

Dear Mr. CARn:R: My interest in Chi's career is so great that I feel somewhat 
responsible for seeing to it that he gets some sort of employment, at least during 
the summer months when the lecture season, off which he has managetl to live 
this year, is at low ebb. I wonder therefore if you have considered the sug- 
gestion I made to you in a letter some weeks ago that Chi be connected with your 
International Secretariat inquiry. I have not heard of your plans but recall 
that in the original application to the Rockefeller Foundation there was some 
mention of an augmented staff. I write now simply in order to keep Chi's name 
prominently before you in case you wish special work done on China. Chen 
Han-seng would, I think, give him a very high recommendatitm. 



Sincerely yours. 



Frederick V. Field. 



F/tr 



Exhibit No. 647 

November 15. 1987. 
Mr. Theodore Draper, 

The New Masses, 31 East 27th Street, 

New York City, N. Y. 

Dear Ted : Moe of the Guggenheim Foundation has referred your fellowship 
application to me and I have just sent him a strong endorsement of your can- 
didacy. I hope you have some luck in that direction. 

Incidentally, the statement of your projected study, which you included with 
your application, is excellent and I hope that in some way or another, you will 
be permitted to carry it out. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 
FVFrb 



Recommendation in St^'pport of Application for Guggenheim Fellowship, 
Written for Theodore Draper, November 17, 1937, by Frederick V. Field 

I am very glad indeed to comment on the application of Mr. Theodore Draper 
for a Guggenheim fellowship. 

I have known Draper personally for about two years during which I have had 
a number of long conversations with him regarding American Far Eastern policy. 
He is a serious student with a good mind. Because of his job on the editorial 
board of The New Masses, his energies have had to be scattered over a much 
wider fiL4d than anyone could handle thoroughly. He has felt increasingly uncom- 
fortable at this situation and has wanted an opportunity to be temporarily relieved 
from these editorial duties in order to go more deeply into American relations 
with the Far East, the subject in which he is particularly interested. 

I think that I have read everything that Draper has written in The New Musses 
on the Far East. Several of the articles have shown a rather deep insight into 
what was going on in China. I recall particularly an article which he published 
early during the current phase of the war on China's defense strategy. He 
showed excellent judgment in analyzing the war situation in China and in pre- 
dicting the probable strategy of the nation's defense and the chief weaknesses 
which would appear as the fighting dragged on. 

Draper seems to have a first rate training in Marxism which whether or not it 
provides all the answers for studying the American scene is unquestionably use- 
ful in analyzing the Far East. He has a flexible mind which avoids mechanical 
and dogmatic interpretations. I should think that if he were given a year in 
which to concentrate on American Far Eastern policy, he would develop to be 
an important worker in this field. 

Draper has, to my knowledge, absolutely no funds of his own so that his only 
chance of becoming an expert in this kind of work early in his career is to secure 
a fellowship which will give him at least a year's freedom from economic worry. 

Before knowing that he had applied for a Guggenheim fellowship, I had occa- 



4096 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

siou to make a list of four or five of the younger Americans wlio had made prom- 
ising beginnings in the study of tlie Far East and who deserved supp<)rt in which 
I included Draper. I am, consequently, very glad to know that he has filed his 
application with you and am very happy to recommend strongly his candidacy. 

57 Post Steeet, November 9, 1937. 
Mr. Theodore Diiaper, 

The Masses, SI East 27th Street, 

New York City, N. Y. 

Dear Ted: I am terribly sorry that it was absolutely impossible for me to 
have a talk with you when I visited New York 10 days ago. I was in a terrible 
hurry to return to San Francisco and internal affairs in the Institute had to 
receive first consideration. 

The proposition you put up to me is certainly a sound one. I have no im- 
mediate answer for it except that I am strongly endorsing your candidacy for 
a Guggenheim fellowship. What your chances there are I don't know, except 
for the fact that the Guggenheim people seem to have been moving to the right 
in recent years. Their infrequent excursions on the left seem to be concentrated 
in the arts rather than in the social sciences. 

There are one or two vague possibilities in the near future which are still 
too uncertain to put down on pai>er, but which are worth exploring. I would 
like very much to have you meet one or two of my colleagues on the American 
Council stalf so that you can get to know each other and so that they have their 
own impressions of your abilities. I have written them, specifically Miss Porter 
who is in charge of the olfice in my absence, and Bill Lockwood, an economist 
who does a fair amount of our research work. You have probably seen some 
of his stulf in the Far Eastern Survey. You have probably disagreed with 
his conclusions, for in most instances I have myself. You will, nevertheless, 
find him ai\ unusually agreeable person and in the field known as orthodox 
economics he is first rate. Either he or Miss Porter will expect you to get in 
touch with them so that you can get together and see what each other looks 
like, etc. I have also suggested that Mrs. Kathleen Barnes, who is our exjiert 
on the Soviet Union, join the gathering. 

I am not going to forget what you have said in your letter and I have hoi>es 
that before long we can find some way of providing an opportunity for you to 
concentrate on Far Eastern developments and the American connection with 
them. The meeting with some of my associates which I have suggested above 
is a necessary first step in anything that we can do. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 

FVFrb 



Exhibit No. &48 

1795 California Street, March 10, 1938. 
Mr. Edward C. Garter, 

129 East 52))d Street, New York, New York. 

Dear Mr. Carter: I do not know how your plans for carrying out the large 
incpiiry are developing but I want to make certain that you have in mind the 
possibility of using Cirao-ting Ghi and Tsuro, the young .Japanese at Harvard 
about whom I think I spoke to you and who has met Chen Hanseng and Kate 
Mitchell. With regard to Chi, his schedule of work is such that I know he 
would be alile to come on your staff <m a part- or full-time basis should you want 
to employ him in any capacity. I need not, I think, point out to you his qualifica- 
tions which are already entirely familiar to you. 

I should, however, add a word in confidence regarding the possibility of Chi's 
being employed by Wittfogel to edit his Chinese materials for you would not 
want to make any move which would interfere with that project. From talking 
with both Chi and Wittfogel at some length during my recent visit I came to 
the conclusion that they would probably not be working together. This arises 
frcmi the fact that Wittfogel will demand and require a tempo of work which 
Chi, with his other interests, will find it impossible to maintain. Chi has offered 
to work for Wittfogel four days a week but, if the latter purposes to edit his 
materials as rapidly as he now plans, this will not, I know, be adequate. Further- 
more, Chi's primary interest lies in current econcmiic and political situations 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4097 

rather than in historical analyses. While no one eonld support Wittfogel's work 
more stron.sly than Chi, I feel that he would a little bit prefer being connected 
with soniethinix more current. 
Sincerely, 

Frederick V. Field. 
F/g 



ExHiRiT No. 049 

JtT-Y 24, 1939. 

-HA 

\V\VL 

We have not reached a decii-ion on how to solve our problem of keeping our 
lay members for whom the Far Eastern Survey is a little too specialized closely 
in touch with and interested in our general program. Negotiations regarding 
the taking over of Anierasia, which some of us have felt would at least in part 
meet (his pioblem. have reached a plateau because of our Chairman's not being 
ccjnvinced that we have found the correct formula. Jessup is not, I think, opposed 
to our taking over Anierasia for any reason except that he doubts whether a 
magazine of that or any other nature is what we really need to introduce into 
our program. He lias a feeling that a magazine, no matter how popularly writ- 
ten, remains a fairly substantial item to give peoi)le. He is skeptical that it will 
meet the demand which he assumes exists among these lay members for a periodic, 
(juick glance at the higli spots of Pacific area relations. 

Wliile the Amerasia idea is by no means dead and while Jessup himself will 
be very glad to look into that suggestion further. I think there is enough sub- 
stance in what he says to warrant exploring a rather different scheme. I am 
consetpiently attaching to this memorandum a copy of the latest one-page bulletin 
from the Council on Foreign Relations. These bulletins are is.sued at irregular 
intervals, perhaps twelve or fifteen times a year. They are never longer than 
a page and tlie page is always divided as this one is. half illustration, half prose. 
Do you think that something along this line could l)e done by this otBce on a 
regular periodic basis without overtaxing our staff or budget?' I have not gone 
into the cost of reproducing and mailing l,rA)0 of these but doubt whether it 
comes to very much. 

I should like very much to have your further ideas. Let me emphasize that 
I am submitting the attached bulletin not as an exact example of what we might 
do but in oi-(ler to start your minds working along that general direction. 

FVF 



Exhibit No. 6.50 

16 West Twelfth Street, March 23, 1942. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

Inst it lite of Pacific Beta t ions. 

129 East Fiftj/sccond Street, Neio York Citii. 
Dear Mr. Carter: Thank for sending on Mr. Pollard's recent letter. I have 
taken off a copy for my files and am herewith returning the original. I have also 
to thank you for sending me a copy of the changes from the first draft of the 
letter you sent him. 

Progress, if any, is slow in my investigations. I am informed, however, that 
the matter has been brought to the attention of Mr. Patterson, the Under Secre- 
tary of War. We are now waiting a report from Mr. Patterson's office on which 
will depend the next move. 

Glad to read the news about RWll's spring offensive. 
Sincerely, 

[s] Fred 

Frederick V. Field. 



4098 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

129 East 52nd Street, 
A^ew York City, March 3, 1942. 
Mr. Fkederick V. Field, 

16 West 12th Street, Neiv York City. 

Dear Fred : I wonder whether you would be willing to draft a reply from me 
to Pollard in answer to this letter which has just reached my desk. 
Sincerely yours, 

Edward C. Carter. 



(Handwritten.) Not sent? 

129 East r)2ND Street, 
Neiv York City, March 12, 1942. 
Mr. John A. Pollaud, 

Special Reports Division, Coordinator of I)tforniution, 
210 Madison Avenue, Neiv York City. 

Dear Mk. Pollard : Thank you for your letter of the 2sth regarding ]\Ir. Field. 

I have no hesitation in testifying to Mr. Field's political integrity and freedom 
from activities which might place his loyalty in question. 

I was associated with him intimately from 1929 until September 1940. During 
this period his Americanism was of the most rugged and valuable character. 
He was an indefatigable and exceptionally able student of domestic and foreign 
policy and became one of our foremost authorities on the Far East. He saw 
the menace of Japan, and I do not know of anyone who more unerringly envisaged 
the inevitable movement of Japan into Indo-China, Thailand, Malaya, and the 
Netherlands Indies. He again and again called attention to the costly appease- 
ment policy of London and Washington, and as I remember, indicated that if 
the United States was not willing to tight to prevent the Japanese occupation of 
French ]ndo-China, all of Southeast Asia would fall to the Japanese. 

In the autumn of 1940 Mr. Field broke with me in the sense that he resigned 
from the staff of the Institute becau.se he recognized that it was impossible for 
him to continue on the Institute staff and engage in political activities as planned 
by the American Peace Mobilization. He felt that the war as defined by the 
London and Paris (Tovernments in 19.'^9 was in danger of involving the United 
States in Chamberlainism, in the underwriting of British ImperiaJism, and in 
the ultimate appeasenient of Germany and Japan as advocated at various times 
by the Cliveden set. He therefore resigned from the IPR, threw himself into 
the APM, carried on a nation-wide educational campaign, and to gain publicity 
for this campaign organized the picketing of the White House. 

Though I had a great deal of sympathy for many of his ideas I liad tried to 
dissuade him from joining the APM because I thought it might endanger both 
his research and political usefulness, and also because I felt that the sooner the 
United States got into the war the sooner it could be transformed from an 
Imperialist war into a people's war against the new and terrible imperialisms 
of Germany and Japan. 

The Congress of the United States, many employees of our government and a 
great many trusted officers of our armed forces were in 1940 in my view as inade- 
quate in their political analysis as Mr. Field. A very high percentage of loyal 
Americans were working, as Mr. Field was working, to keep us out of the war. 
They did this for all kinds of motives and all kinds of reasons. Yet the vast 
majority of these are accepted today as citizens of integrity, completely free from 
activities which might i)lace their loyalty in question. I would trust Mr. Field s 
integrity more than I would certain well known isolationists, because I think 
he possesses m(u-e than most a keen awareness of the essence of our American 
democracy. 

There will, of course, be wide difference of opinion as to the wisdom of APM's 
picketing the White House. Personally, I think it was an ill-advised move. 
It was defended by its protagonists on the ground that APM felt obligated to 
exi>ose the nature of what they regarded as the phony war which was being 
waged at the beginning. The difference between APM and certain genuinely 
subversive muvements was that APM was attempting to do everything in The 
open, and its picketing of the White House was an attempt to bring out into the 
open before the American peojile and the American government the important 
issues which it believed nuist be faced by tlie American people. 

That Mr. Field could be guilty of any disloyalty to the United States is in- 
conceivable. The great advantage he has over many is that liis political analysis 
of the Far Ea.st has been far in advance of most of our best informed citizens. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4099 

His knowledge of the Far East is very extensive. His capacity for work is great. 
His usefulness to the Government would, in my view, be beyond question. 
Sincerely yours, 

Edward C. Cautkr. 



Exhibit Xo. (Jol 



129 East 52nd Street, 
liew York, Neio York, May 4, 193S. 
Mrs. RvTH Young, 

Food Research Institute, Stanford University, California. 

Dear jNIrs. Young : Several of the officers of the Canadian Institute of Inter- 
national Affairs were in New York wlien I arrived and I took up with them the 
point you raised in regard to entering Canada for the purpose of taking up 
employment there during the time of the Banff Conference. They confirmed your 
suspicions that there might be some difficulty involved and urged us to attach 
you to the secretariat before you entered Canada. 

I am writing Loomis in regard to this point and assume that you will soon be 
hearing from him. 

Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field, 
Acting Research Secretary. 



Exhibit No. 652 

Philip C. Jessup 

conference members 

* Philip Jessup, Professor of International Law, Columbia University, New York. 
Source : Problems of the Pacific, 1933, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations, Banff, Alberta, Canada, August 14-26, 
1933. Page 456 

( * indicates chairman of round table) 

international officers of the ipr 

Philip C. Jessup, Chairman, Pacific Council. Professor of International Law, 
Columbia University, New Y'ork. 

Source: Problems of the Pacific, 1939, Proceedings of the Study Meeting 
of the Institute of Pacific Relations, 7th Conference, Virginia Beach, Vir- 
ginia, November 18 to December 2, 1939 (page 273) 

AMERICAN council NATIONAL OFFICERS 

Philip C. Jessxip, Vice Chairman 

Board of Trustees 

Philip C. Jessup 

Source : Annual Report of the American Council of the IPR, 1938 
(page 58) 

Conference Members 

Philip C. Jessup (1933, 1939), Chairman Pacific Council, I. P. R. Professor of 
International Law, Columbia University. Assistant Solicitor, U. S. Department 
of State. 1924-25. Legal Adviser to American Ambassador to Cuba, 1930. 
Member Executive Committee, Harvard Research in International Law. Chair- 
man United States delegation. 

Source : War and Peace in the Pacific. A Preliminary Report of the Eighth 
Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations on Wartime and Postwar 
Cooperation of the United Nations in the Pacific and the Far East. Mont 
Tremblant, Quebec, December 4—14, 1942 (page 159) 

Conference Members 

Jessup, Philip C. (1933, 1939, 1942), Professor of International Law, Columbia 
University. Former Chairman of the Pacific Council, I. P. R. Chief, Division 
of Personnel and Training OFRRO ; Secretary pro-tem of Council of UNRRA, 



4100 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

1948. Legal adviser to American Ambassador to Cuba, 1930. Author : "The 
United States and the World Court," 1929; "International Security," 1935; 
"The Life of Elihu Root," 1938. Chairman, United States delegation. 

Source : Security in the Pacific, A Preliminary Report of the Ninth Con- 
ference of the Institute of Pacific Relations, Hot Springs, Virginia, Janu- 
ary 6-17, 1945 (page 157) 

Western Union Telegram 

WiNSTED, Conn., Nov. 23. 
WUT23 7 XC— 1032A 
Edw. C. Carter : 

Approve nominations suggest Jessup for research chairman. 

Feed. 



Exhibit No. 653 

February 23, 1937. 
CP from FVF : 

What is the story of Owen Lattimore's Mongolian sheep which Tony Jenkin- 
son wants? Please return with any information. 

FVF from CP : What Tony has in mind is probably Owen's long discourse on 
Mongolia during the first general session on the U. S. S. R. The verbatim notes 
of this are not in the office at the moment, but here is the part about the sheep 
as finally edited by Owen and included in the forthcoming Problems of the 
Pacific : 

"The nomadic Mongols had a self-sufficient economy in which the sheep 

was the economic luiit. The woo] of the sheep is fairly coarse, but it is 

excellent for making felt tents. The skin makes a warm coat. The sheep 

is an "all-i-ound" :inimal unlike the specialized western type. The meat is 

of good quality and supplies food. It supplies milk in the summer rather 

than meat. In the steppes which are treeless, sheep dung is used for fuel. 

From this one animal the Mongols get food, clothing, housing, and fuel." 

(Tony will doubtless remember that it was at that point that Owen added 

that the sheep furnished practically everything but anmsement — which classic 

thought was carefully edited out.) 

If by any chance Tony wants the whole story about improving the wool, etc., 
it can be found on page 37 of the typescript of Chapter III of the Proceedings 
wliich is in Kate Mitchell's hands. 



Exhibit No. 654 

August 23, 1934. 
Mr. Newton D. Baker, 

CJiairnian, Aiiicricfni Coinicil. rii-stitvtc of Pacific Relations, 
Union Trust Building, Cleveland, Ohio. 
Dear Mr. Baker: 1 am very happy to accept the position of Secretary of the 
American Council and to assinne office on the first of September. 

It is most encouraging to know that I have your support and that I may oc- 
casionally confer with you In legard to the development of our activities. 

I look forward to assuming this new responsibility with enthusiasm and hope 
that I shall be able to cai'ry it out with the success that has attended the efforts 
of my predecessors.- 

Sincerely yours, • 

(Signed) Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 655 



April 20, 1933. 

Mr. Loomis : Before leaving, I should like to summarize briefly a few jwints in 
regard to the Central Secretariat. 

One of the principles laid down early in the Institute's history was that the 
work of the organization should be carried out through already existing bodies 
insofar as possible, and the creation of an elaborate Institute organization, as 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4101 

such, uiiuimized. This policy has been strictly adhered to in all branches of our 
work and in every National Council, or at least in all those formed especially on 
belialf of the Institute. The yrinciiile that the organization of the Institute 
should limit its activities to the stimulation and coordination of the work carried 
out by others, designed to fulfill the aims of the institute, has been closely 
followed. 

In order properly to perform these functions of initiation and coordination, 
skillful administration is necessary and as the Institute's full program has got- 
ten under way the burden of administration has naturally increased — not only 
that, but the applicatictn of general policies and philosophies of the Institute has 
become more and more complex and at times a matter for delicate handling. 
And so while adhering strictly to the original principle of minimizing the organi- 
zation set-up, considerations of etlieiency in administration and coordination and 
the activities of others have pointed to the importance of maintaining a well- 
etpiipped staff in each of the National Councils and particularly in the Central 
Secretariat. 

It was with these general ideas in mind that some of the Secretaries of the 
Shanghai Conference presented a memorandum to the Pacific Council urging the 
appointment to your staff of three or four Junior Secretaries from various im- 
portant National Councils. On account of the financial situation and for other 
reasons it has been possible to put this recommendation only in partial opera- 
tion. I would suggest, nevertheless, that the experiment that we have been con- 
ducting here for three months with a strengthened Central Secretariat has at 
least indicated the possibilities of making the arrangement permanent and even 
somewhat augmenting this temporary staff. It is quite impossible to apply to 
specific situations and specific countries the general policies of the Institute 
without the active and continuous cooperation of representatives from the larger 
National Councils who are in close touch with the peculiar conditions in their 
countries and with the offices of their respective National Councils. A common 
line of action has to be carried out in one way in the United States and very 
likely in tpiite another way in Japan. The successful application to tliese general 
lines of action must be made by qualified representatives of each country who 
by long association with the Institute have a thorough understanding of its 
methods and philosophies. 

In the light of the above points. I was very much pleased in the i-esolution ap- 
proved by the Advisory Committee yesterday to the same effect. I hope very 
much that the Pacific Council will .support the principle of maintaining a strong 
central otfice, always on the understanding, of course, that the activities of such 
a staff will be limited to administration and coordination. 

I woiald have some hesitancy in making these remarks which apparently call 
for explanation and iulditional financial burden during these impossible times 
were it not for certain considerations. Among the.se are the fact that you have 
s(jmehow managed this wii\ter to augment the staff on a greatly reduced budget, 
the fact that b\ stimulating the interest of various National Councils greater 
support from each may be anticipated, and the fact that the more for which you 
have to raise money, the more you are likely to raise. I think that with the type 
of organizati(;nal set-up I have in mind, we can do a good job. If this is true, 
our chances of securing support are proportionately great. 

Frederick V. Field, 
Actin(j Research Sccretarij. 

(Matsukata to Loomis) 

May 2, 1933. 

Memorandum 

Mr. LooMis : Having read what Field wrote before be left here, I find myself 
in complete agreement with his opinion on the necessity of strengthening the 
Central Secretariat. The fact that I am in complete agreement with him seems 
to show that we were working very closel.v in these months since February, and 
were building up opinion in tlie course of and from the result of our cooperative 
works. And this, perhaps, is one of the great advantages the Institute method 
provides. 

To have enforcement in the form of Associate Secretaries, or otherwise, from 
the National Councils at the Central Secretariat is very advisable, as Field 
writes, from the standpoint of efficiency and administration, but it is also very 
desirable for more intensive cooperation of the various National Councils. To 
make the National Councils feel at home with the work carried on in the Central 



4102 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Secretariat and to make them feel that they are actually contributing to the 
common cause of the Institute, the system we have had for the last three months 
seems to be essential and necessary. In other words, to work our cooperative 
scheme is very important to bring forth cooperative feeling, which is the basis 
of all the activities of our Institute. 

When I left Japan I had two definite aims. One was to serve the Central 
Secretariat and the other was to serve the Home Council, 1. e., to help the 
Japanese Council in their preparation for the Banff Conference and at the 
same time to help them build up a stronger National Council. For the first point, 
I am not in a position to judge as to my achievement, but for the second point I 
am pretty certain that my presence here has helped a great deal in making the 
people in Japan work in closer touch with the central office. At the same time 
I felt I could help the Home Council to carry on organization of the council on 
a more serious basis. It is essential, I think, for healthy development of the 
Institute as a whole. 

To have the assistance of Chinese and Japanese secretaries seems to me very 
useful for bringing out a really well-balanced "Pacific Affairs." I am not at 
all satisfied with what I did in this respect, namely, in heliiing the editor of the 
magazine, but still I am confident that it is essential for the steady development 
of our Institute organ. Moreover, having such cooperation of people who can 
take care of current topics, first hand, regarding their respective countries, seems 
to be exceedingly advisable for developing our library along the unique line of 
being a "Pacific" library. But before we decide as to the future of the library 
there seem to be many things to be agreed upon such as the nature of our future 
research work, the strength of the Central Secretariat, etc. At any rate, from 
the standpoint of the Central Secretariat having a well-organized library at its 
headquarters will mean that it is not only the administrative center of the 
Institute, but also the center of studies of the Pacific area. ( See "Memorandum 
on Pacific Library.") 

I have emphasized the points which were not referred to by Field but it does 
not mean, as I wrote in the beginning of this memorandum, that I have anything 
to criticize on the opinion which he expressed, biit I would repeat once more that 
I am in complete agreement with what Field says. 



Exhibit No. 656 

(Pencilled : ) Lasker 
January 22, 1940. 
Memorandum to : BL 
From : FVF 

Here is a manuscript for a forthcoming Public Affairs Committee pamphlet on 
"Propaganda and the War." I wonder if you would he interested in reading it 
and giving me any comments you may have and which I could pass on to the 
editor. Maxwell Stewart. I am also rather anxious to ask Dorothy Borg to 
look it over, so I would appreciate it if you could arrange with her so that both 
of you could give me comments before the early deadline of January 30th. 

(Pencilled: Lasker's comment 1/23/40 sent to Max Stewart 1/23/40 except 
following paragraph. 

Paragraph attached (pencilled out) : 

The Foreign Policy Association which has done so much to educate the Ameri- 
can public to a tolerant reception of diverse views on, and interpretations of, 
current international issues, should be first among the organizations that are 
trying to promote a similar learning process in relation to printed literature, 
instead of joining in the unintelligent hue and cry against "propaganda." 

January 23, 1940. 



Exhibit No. 657 

July 26, 1937. 
Mr. Nathaniel Peffrr, 

c/o Consulate General of the United States, 

Tokyo. 
Dear Peffer: Many thanks indeed for your letter of June 24 from Peiping 
and your later note of July 2nd. Regarding the first, your views are most in- 
teresting though I still think that in the long run China has more to lose by 
continuing its peasantry in a condition of extreme poverty and by becoming 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC REl.ATIONS 4103 

increasingly subject to Japanese exploitation than by a strong fight. I see 
frightful destruction either way, but Great Britain, France, ourselves, and other 
foreign countries completely lacking in both intellect and guts. I see no third 
way out of the Sino-Japanese situation. 

I note your remarks regarding those people whom you believe greatly over- 
estimate (a) the strength and importance of the Chinese Communists, and (b) 
the fighting strength of China as a whole. I surely am one of those whom you 
have in mind. These points require much thought and discussion which cannot 
be undertaken in a letter. But at this point my one comment is that we are 
putting an enormous amount of emphasis on the political content of an army 
at war as a substitute for military training and material equipment. On 
political content the Chinese will have it all over the Japanese and this dif- 
ferential will increase as fighting becomes prolonged. In my opinion this will 
more than compensate for China's material and military weaknesses. This is 
one of the important points, it seems to me, which explained the Red Army's 
ability to remain intact from 1928 to Sian. I think it will count similarly on 
behalf of all Chinese troops versus the Japanese military machine. 

For the last three weeks the one great question in our minds has been whether 
or not Chiang Kai-shek was going to support the 29th Army. It is clear that 
China has already lost temporarily at least the Peiping-Tientsin area. It could 
have saved it only by bombarding the Japanese troops as they came into the 
country. Once the Japanese army got into position nothing on earth, let alone 
Chinese troops, could move it. China must therefore, or so we suppose from our 
New York desks, make a stand if it intends to make a stand at all, at a line no 
further north than Paoting. Still the question remains, is Chiang Kai-shek 
really going to take a stand or is he merely going through enough motions to 
rationalize what he is doing before his own people without liecoming involved in 
any headlong collision with the Japanese? If it is the latter, and I suspect that 
is the case, then in a few months' time all of Hopei will be lost and the road will 
be cleared for the next provinces, which I suppose will be Shansi and Shantung. 

Having engaged in the utter absurdity of writing to you who are in Peiping 
what is going on in China, let me now reply to your second note regarding Miss 
Agnes Roman. Some weeks ago I had a long letter from her as well as a note 
speaking most highly of her from Bill Holland. It happens that Russell Shiman. 
the Editor of our Far Eastern Survey, is leaving for the Far East via Europe 
and a Rockefeller Fellowship at the end of this week. I have asked him to look 
up Miss Roman when he is in Shanghai and to see if he cannot work out some- 
thing with her in relation to the Survey. We are not now in a position to take 
anyone on our staff because we have a tough enough time as it is paying those 
who are already here. If something breaks for us, however, or if I suddenly 
discover how to stomach money raising, I'll keep her prominently in mind. 

Do I gather that you are not to be here until December? We had hoped to 
see you much earlier. I know your sister will be disappointed. She, incidentally, 
is a swell person and is doing practically a one-man job at putting Amerasia 
through the press each month. We were lucky to have found her. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 658 

September 4, 1935. 
Mr. Owen Lattimore, 

Peiping, 

Dear Owen : Since I first learned that you had arranged for an article on 
the Chinese Communist movement from Harold Isaacs I hoped that it would 
be possible to find someone to write a reply. I was very pleased with the way 
the Isaacs article turned out, but it is after all a very controversial interpreta- 
tion of the Chinese situation. I would not like to see Pacific Affairs leave the 
Chinese Soviet movement go with a Trotskyist exposition. Certainly an orthodox 
Communist view is needed to counterbalance it. 

I knew of no one in this country whom we would invite to reply to Isaacs. 
It would be difficult for a foreigner who wanted to return to China in the near 
future to present an orthodox Communist view, and it would be impossible for 
a Chinese. For Pacific Affairs to accept an article on this sort of subject by 
someone using a pseudonym would seem to me nonsense. Whether you could 
find someone in China to write the article I questioned, for the same reason that 
it seemed impossible to find someone in this country. 



4104 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Happily what seems to me a solution is at hand. In the September issue of 
China Today, which as you know is published in New York by a left-wing group 
of Chinese, appears a reply to Isaacs' Pacific Affairs article by someone who 
signs himself Hansu Chan. I think the article is well written and the points 
he makes are certainly the correct orthodox Communist rebuttals to a Trotsky 
position. I am enclosing that article and al.so an editorial appearing in the same 
issue of the magazine on "The Spread of the Soviet ^Movement in China." 

My suggestion is that you incorporate excerpts from Hansu Chan's rebuttal 
in an extended editorial comment signed by yourself. You could word your own 
comments in such a way as to disavow any responsibility for the rebuttal and 
so as not to involve yourself personally in the controversy. I urge this simply 
becau.'<e it seems to me that the subject of the Chinese Communist movement is 
of paramount importance and that therefore I'acific Affairs must analyze it 
from different angles. This view is shared by four or five of my colleagues on 
the American Council staff. 

Of course this whole scheme may strike you as much less important than it 
does me. I am simply expressing my own views and that of a few others here 
in the hope that the suggestion corresponds with your own thoughts on the 
matter. Catherine Porter is away on vacation, otherwise she would be writing 
this note rather than I. 
Yours sincerely, 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 059 

( Handwritten : ) Lattimore 

New York City, Aiiril 22, 1940. 
Mr. Owen Lattimore, 

300 GUman Hall, Johns Hopkhis University, 

Haiti III ore. }frir!i}(iiiil. 

Dear Owen : I wonder if you have replied to the rather strange memorandum 
(attached — see also Yarnel's comment to ECC herewith) on the embargo qttestion 
by Colonel Ottosen of the University of AVashington R. O. T. C. which Charles E. 
Martin sent to you. While Ottosen makes two or three interesting points he by 
no means covers the subject. The jjoinrs that he passes over without comment — • 
as for instance the little item of jietroleum lieiug used for airplanes — are by all 
odds the most important. It seems to me that it would be worth while getting ati 
answer to this memorandum in his hands, perhaps via Martin. If you have 
done nothing about it I thought I might send it over to Harry Price and get him to 
work out a reply which he might then get Yarnell to endorse. 

Speaking of the embargo reminds me that I am afraid I did not get enough con- 
sideration of your point of view at the Council on Foreign Relations dinner the 
other night. Those are somewhat peculiar gatherings and I don't think they 
can be used to change people's points of view. For one thing, the sessions are too 
short and the dinners too long. All I tried to do was to get general participation 
in the discussion and this I did, you will recall, by the elementary procedure of 
calling on people in order to wake them up from their cigars, and the result was, 
of course, a very confused series of expressions. 

I think it is very important that, by a little serious discussion supplemented 
perhaps by occasional letters, we try to reanalyze our own views on the embargo. 
I am giving very brief thought to the matter on busses and between phone calls 
here. I have recalled that during the early stages of the wai' in the Far East 
we were pressing hard for an American embargo on exports with the warning that 
if we did not take action soon it would be too late. I am inclined to think that we 
were right and that it is now important to remember that we always added that 
proviso al>out action befoi'e it was too late. I am more and more inclined to 
think that we must now recognize that the time for an emliargo has perhaps 
passed, that is that it is already too late. I am now inclined to think that an 
embargo would actually be a dangerous move because of the European war and 
particularly because of the inability of the Allies to get the upper hand in the 
tirst months of the war and the additional factor that an election year makes 
American policy even more haywire than usual. The Far Eastern scene is one 
in which .Tapan may very likely take further provocative steps. The danger of 
their invading some area in southeastern Asia, not necessarily the Netherlands 
Indies, seems to me a real one. They might quite possibly be provoked by our 
establishing an embargo. If we concluded that this was the likely result and if 
we hold to (mr original belief that the spreading of the Japanese war area to 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC REIATIONS 4105 

soutlieastern Asia would be one of the most important steps involving iis directly 
in the Far Eastern war, I think we should discontinue advocating the embargo 
policy. 

I still hold to the view that the only purpose of positive policy is to provide the 
minimum risk of eventual involvement in war. 

Whether these considerations pertain to restrictions of one sort or another on 
Unitefl States imports from Japan, I am not sure. 1 am indined to think that 
imi>ort restrictions should be advocated as thf most powerful and reasonably safe 
course that is now open to us. It is hard fur me to see how Japan can retaliate 
in a military way aiiainst United States tariffs on her goods. Certainly the 
danger of such retaliation would not be great if the tariffs were imposed grad- 
ually and in such a way that they were ba.sed on the well-established principles 
of nondiscrimination in international trade. Again, however, if we do advocate 
import restrictions, we must introduce the timing factor and point out that here 
again the time when they can he imi)osed safely, if we so concluded, is limited. 
Obviously the l()nger we continue narrowing the safe alternatives of policy the 
more certain we are of not being able to take the constructive steps which seem 
to nie essential if we are to avoid almost certain hostilities. 

I wish you would write me your thoughts on these questions for while I know 
that you are still peaking in favor of an embargo I imagine that these same 
doubts have occurred to you. One further consideration I should add is that 
whereas before the outbreak of war in Etirope the possibility of a clash between 
the I'nited States and Japan was not something to terrify us if it had to take 
place, it will now certainly link us immediately into the E'uropean war and that is 
sometliing which is to my mind unthinkable. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 060 



Officers of San Fraufisco Bay Reaion Group: Ray Lyman Wilbur, Chairman ; Mrs. Alfr«'(l 
.McLauKlilin, Vice Cliairman : Robert Gordon Sproul. Vice Chairman : Jes.sp Steinhart, 
Treasurer ; John H. Oakie, Secretary 

National Officers : Carl L. Alsberg. Chairman : Wallace M. Ale.xanrter, Vice Chairman : 
Mi.ss Ada L. ("omstocl^. Vice Chairman ; Frederick V. Field, Secretary : Charles J. Rhoads, 
Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austern. Assistant Treasurer : Carl L. Alsberg, Research Chair- 
man : Galen M. Fisher. Counselor on Research & Education 

american council 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

san francisco 

Telephone E.xBrook 1458 — Cable Address : INPAREL 

1795 California Street 

March 17. 19.38. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

129 East o2nd Street, New York, New York. 

Dear Mr. Carter: I am very much interested to learn that you are to speak 
at the Hippodrome on the Soviet Union and present world events in a meeting 
being arranged by Corliss Lamont. I wish I could be there to hear you. 

I cannot think of any special points which I would like to have you' make on 
behalf of the American Council. I very much doubt whether either Mr. Morgan 
or Mr. Rockefeller will be in your audience so that strictly financial problems 
will probably not have to be considered. Your speech will doubtless be concerned 
entirely with the subject you have been asked to handle. I cannot think of 
anything I can suggest to add to your own close knowledge of the Soviet position 
nor to your interpretation with which I find myself completely in agreement. 
There are points which, it seems to me, have to be made over and over again to 
American audiences. They include : 

(a) The fact that to anyone who will take the trouble to read the detailed 
])roceedings of the famous Moscow trials and even to people who will read 
enough American newspapers to correct the obvious prejudices of any one of 
them, this whole series of trials makes sense. The story of the internal revolt 
against what is called the Stalin regime, but what is actually a large hierarchy 
of committees of which Stalin is the chief secretary, is to my mind a clear one 



4106 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

and a consistent one. Most Americans genuinely object, as I do, to ruthless 
mettiods of suppression. I do not try to defend this in the Soviet Union and 
I see no point in anyone's doing so. I object to the same thing in the suppres- 
sion of labor activities in this country where evidences of brutality during the 
last eighteen months, if brought together, would make a very ominous record. 
Obviously, the important thing is to stress the fundamental background on which, 
it seems to me, there should be general sympathy with what the Soviet Union 
is trying to do, and to isolate the details which one can very legitimately criticize. 

(b) The Soviet Union's foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the Far 
East and here particularly as it affects China's inland frontier. The prevailing 
view is the one represented by the so-called Peter Fleming mind, namely, that 
Soviet imperialism is just the same thing as British or American or Japanese 
imperialism. You will find in the current issue of Amerasia what is to my mind 
an exceptionally clear article by Owen Lattimore which does pretty well in 
distinguishing between the admittedly expanding Soviet influence in the Mon- 
golian region and the military Imperialism of the Japanese. 

(c) More and more people are including the Soviet Union among the fascist 
dictatorships. The names of Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler are often grouped 
with the implication that each stands for the same system. To my mind, as 
you know, there is an extremely fundamental difference between the Soviet dic- 
tatorship and those in Germany, Hitler and Japan. There is not, however, a 
very great deal of difference in the superficial characteristics of these dictator- 
ships. The methods employed by each are often similar; the important thing 
is not only the situation in which the dictatorships operate but the purposes for 
which dictatorial methods are employed. 

I could go on through the alphabet but think I had better leave it at these 
few points which happen to be in the front of my mind. I certainly don't think 
it is our job to defend the Soviet Union. My interest is in defending the United 
States by trying to bring some clarification in the public's mind as to what is 
going on abroad in which we are vitally concerned. 
Wishing you lots of luck. 
Sincerely yours, 

( Signed ) Fred 
f/g Frederick V. Field. 

Exhibit No. 662 

OfBcers of San Franeisco Ba.v Region Group : Ray Lyman Willnir, Chairman ; Mrs. Alfred 
McLaughlin, Vice Chairman ; Robert Gordon Sproul, Vice Chairman ; Jesse Steinhart, 
Treasurer ; John H. Oakie, Secretary 

National Officers : Carl L. Alsberg, Chairman ; Wallace M. Alexander, Vice Chairman ; 
Miss Ada L. Comstock, Vice Chairman ; Frederick V. Field, Secretary ; Charles J. Rhoads, 
Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austeru, Assistant Treasurer ; Carl L. Alsberg, Research Chair- 
man ; Galen M. Fisher, Counselor on Research and Education 

american council 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

57 Post Street, San Francisco 

Telephone ExBrook 1458 — Cable Address : INPAREL 

(Handwritten:) FVF— 1 : 00 (Fri. luncheon, 18th— 12$)), 'Wittfogel. 

January 31, 1938. 
Miss Catherine Porter, 

American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East r>2nd street. New York, New York. 

Dear Catherine: Will you call a meeting of the Executive Committee for 
whatever day is generally convenient, the week following my arrival on the 17th? 
If the meeting could be held the following Wednesday, Thursday, or Fi'iday it 
would give me time after my arrival to prepare the agenda and send the necessary 
reports to those attending. 

As nearly as I can figure now, the agenda should include the following items : 

(1) Approval of the budget for 1938. 

(2) Plans for raising funds in 1938, including special arrangaments to 
be made with Mr. Carter. 

(3) A report on the development of our groups on the West Coast. 

(4) The question of affiliation as a consultative member of the National 
Peace Conference. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC REIATIONS 4107 

(5) Plans for the New York discussion conference of the American Coun- 
cil members. 

(6) The location of the New York office. 

This last point is not an urgent one, though I should like to have it given con- 
sideration fairly soon. We now pay a large enough rent in New York so that 
if we moved away from the center of the city we could probably get very much 
more space with more protection against fire at the same price. What would 
you think of our moving up near Columbia, for instance? And if so, could you 
find out for purposes of discussion what sort of rent is charged for the sort of 
house on 117th Street which the Carnegie Endowment, the International Insti- 
tute of Social Research, and other such organizations occupy. Those houses are 
rather dark but they provide a fair amount of office space and good rooms for 
books and meetings. I cannot see that there is any very great advantage to being 
located in the middle of the city except that heretofore the office was located 
near my own apartment. In view of my moving downtown when I return to 
New York, this significant point will be eliminated. 

Totally unrelated to the above is the fact that the American Council will defi- 
nitely move its offices in about three weeks to a residence at 1795 California 
Street. You may, therefore, tell Hilda to go ahead with the printing of the new 
letter paper, although we do not yet know what our new telephone number will 
be. 

Aside from the many things which I shall have to discuss with you and the 
other members of the staff in New York, I shall want to have sessions of an hour 
or so with Peffer, Wittfogel, and Christy. It might be a good idea to aiTange 
for these appointments at Columbia, say the Monday or Tuesday after my arrival, 
arranging for luncheon with Wittfogel and times before and after luncheon with 
the other two. Is Mortimer Graves likely to be in New York during my visit? 
If so, I shall also want to reserve a good deal of time for conferences with him. 
I shall also want to spend several hours with my Amebasia colleagues and 
would appreciate it if you would let them know my dates. 

I think it would be a good idea if you would arrange a list of topics which I 
should discuss with the members of the staff so that we can proceed in an orderly 
fashion. I think you know the points to be raised as well or better than I so 
I shall not attempt to make suggestions. 

Your letter of January 25th brings up a few points to which I should reply. 
In the first place, I shall be gald to see Mr. Walworth of Houghton, Mifllin 
Company when I am in New York. 

Secondly, I have not incliided John Fairbank of Harvard in the more recent list 
of candidates for membership secretary because I am reasonably certain that 
he would not want to concentrate as much on money raising as the job demands. 
I have a very high regard for him and would some day like to see him associated 
with us in some other capacity. 

The list to whom Lockwood recommends that I write asking for further sug- 
gestions regarding candidates for this job is in part a good one and I am today 
dictating letters to Spykman, Stacy May. Donald Young, E. E. Barnett, Lobeii- 
stine, and Water Van Kirk. I am asking them to send their replies to you in 
New York. You will find enclosed a sample letter. In the meantime I trust you 
are approaching the three or four people whom I recommended in a recent letter. 
You might also add to your list Dr. Stephen Duggan in case I failed to mention 
him before. 

If an expert on China is badly needed for the Far Eastern Survey, as I am 
sure that he is, why not speed up a decision on another Rockefeller Foundation 
fellow and pick someone who would fill this gap in our present staff? In my 
opinion we have already lost two or three months of such a person's time by our 
inability to decide on a candidate. 

I am delighted that Miss Cynthia Power has made such a favorable impression. 
I shall look forward to seeing her in San Francisco and I hope that you will 
especially recommend to her that she call on us in our new quarters as soon as 
she arrives. We have fewer German hofbraus in San Francisco than you do in 
New York but my researches on the last two Saturday nights indicate that there 
are a number of substitutes. Incidentally, is Miss Power the daughter of Sir 
John Power? I assume that she is. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s]-Fred 

Frederick V. Field. 

FVF/g 



4108 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. G63 
Telephone, Plaza 3-4700 Cable, INPAREL, New York- 

Officers : Newton D. Baker, Chairman : Wallace M. Alexander, Vice Chairman : Edward C. 
Carter, Vice Chairman ; Miss Ada L. Comstock, Vice Chairman ; Mrs. F, Louis Slade, 
Vice Chairman ; Frederick V. Field, Secretary ; Charles J. Khoads, Treasurer ; Miss Hilda 
Aiistern, Assistant Treasurer : Carl Ij. Alsherjr, Research Chairman 
Staflf : Joseph Barber, Jr., Kathleen Barnes, Annette Blumenthal, Miriam S. Farley, Eliza- 
beth B. Field, Nancy S. Hushes, Catherine Porter, Jeanette D. Randolph. Russell G. 



Shiinan, Helen Wiss 



AMERICAN COUNCIL 

Institute of PACinc Rklatio.\s 
129 East 52d Street, New York City 



December 17, 1934. 



Mr. E. C. Carter, 

Chatham House. 
Dear Mb. Carter: Thank .von for tlie coii.v of the hiblioiiraphy ou Economic 
China iirepare<l for tlie I. P. R. by Leonard (i. Ting, c>f Nankal. Tliere does not 
seem to be anything I can do about this with respect to Kantorovitch inasmuch 
as our arrangement simply calls for my supplying English language books from 
this office. I suggest that Chinese language material be exchanged directly be- 
tween Liu's office and Moscow. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Fred 

Frederick V. Field. 

P. S. — May I add that if it proves embarrassing for a direct exchange to be set 
".il» between Shanghai and Moscow, or Tokyo and Moscow, I shall be glad to have 
documents routed through this office. 



Exhibit No. 664 
Address (')ffi('ial Conununications to The Secretary of State. Washington, D. C. 

Department ok State, 
Wasliinffton, October S, IdSJ/. 

Dear Fred: I have made some incpiiries since my r«'turn about the possibility 
of the holding of a Naval Conference in liK^o. There seems to be considerable 
doubt as to whether it will be held, and this doubt should be cleared up by the 
conversations to be held shortly in London. I suggest that you hold off making 
any preparatory studies until these conversations are completed. The naval 
situation appears to have readied a crisis and all signs indicate a showdown at 
the forthcoming conversations. 

I find that the gentleman who made the study of Japanese labor conditions 
is Mr. Latourette of the International Labor Office. Feis says that he seemed 
to have a clearer picture of conditons there backed by statistical data than 
an.voue else he has talked to. 

In connection witli the trade agreements, a Foreign Service officer has been 
recalled from the Far East to give advice upon the Japanese situation. His name 
is Sturgeon, and I would be very glad to intrcxluce yon to him when you come to 
Washington. 

I am looking forward to seeing y<iu and hope that yon will be able to have lunch 
or dinner with me. 

Sincerely yours, 

[s] Larry 

Lawrence Duggax. 



October 4, 1934. 
Mr. Lawrence Duggan, 

Department of State, Washington. D. C. 
Dear Larry : The information you give me in your letter of October 3rd is very 
welcome. I was on the point of writing you to find out the name and author of 
the study on Japanese labor conditions wliich you mentioned when you were in 
this office a few weeks ago. I hope that when I come to Washington I shall be 
able to see this monograph. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC REl ATIONS 4109 

Thank you alt<o for offering to introduce nie to Sturgeon. When I come to your 
city I shall certainly ask you to carry this out. 

Your paragraph on the naval conference bears out what I had supposed was 
happening. Even if the 1935 conference is called off, however, the type of study 
which I have in mind will still be very useful. I am not so much interested in the 
measuremen'ts of guns or bullets or the tonnage of ships or even the nineteenth 
century diplomacy which surrounds these questions; but I am interested in the 
social and economic setting of the whole navy question. Regardless of whether 
or not they hold a conference next spring, the problem of navies in the Pacific is 
bound to be prominent. With our fleet dashing around the Aleutian Islands and 
Japanese and American admirals shooting oft their faces every other minute, the 
subject can be counted on to remain on the first or second page of the papers. A 
monograph, therefore, tying the question down to the day-by-day life of the aver- 
age American citizen -seems to me altogether pertinent. 

I have already talked to Walter Millis of the Herald Tribune, whom you prob- 
ably know is the author of "The Martial Spirit," about this point. There is every 
likelihood that he will undertake the thing for us. I have great confidence in his 
intelligence and ability to interpret this type of question and I think that any- 
thing he produces will be interesting. We will have quite a hand in whatever he 
does in this office, which may or may not suggest to you further assurance of the 
validity of the undertaking. 

Just at the moment I am overwhelmed with selling the Institute and myself to 
the people from whom we expect large donations. As soon as this unpleasant duty 
is over I shall take the first train to Washington. 
Sincerely yours, 

Fredebick V. Field, 



Exhibit No. 665 

(Handwritten) 
WLH 
JS 3 

KM 

Philip C. Jessup, Chairman ; Wallace M. Alexander, Vice Chairman ; Miss Ada L. Comstock, 
Vice Chairman : Benjamin H. Kizer, Vice Chairman ; Philo W. Parker, Vice Chairman ; 
Robert Gordon Sproul, Vice Chairman ; Ray Lyman Wilbur, Vice Chairman ; Frederick V. 
Field, Secretary ; Francis S. Harmon, Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austern, Assistant 
Treasurer 

american councll 
Institute of Pacific Relations, Incorporated 

1795 California Street, San Francisco; Telephone: TUxedo 3114 — 129 East 52nd Street, 
New York City ; Telephone : Plaza 3-4700 

Cable : Inparel 

New York Citv, October 9, 1939. 
Mr. Edward G. Carter, 

Upstairs Office. 

Dear Mr. Carter : Owen has sent me a copy of his letter to you of October 5th 
with regard to his editorial on collective security, as he calls it, which we all 
damned. I should like to make a few comments in case you want to give further 
consideration to the possibility of covering this difficult concept in a early issue 
of the magazine. 

My first feeling is to drop the expression "collective security" as it has in my 
opinion been rendered virtually meaningless not only by the use to which it has 
been put but also by the damage which has been done to the concept as it was 
originally used. It seems to me that what we as an organization are interested 
in is the question of future security in the Pacific area. This may be attained 
by a collective system, or by re-establishing some sort of balance of power (which 
is quite another thing from collective security), or by some sort of unilateral 
domination of tlie area's most controversial regions, e. g., by Japan, by the Soviet 
Union, by the United States. I cannot see any way for an organizational maga- 
zine like Pacific Affairs to discuss the question other than by asking a number of 
prominent persons to express their opinions in its pages. It is not something for 
one officer of the Pacific Council, either Lattimore or you, to express unless you 
are included in a group of others all writing on the same subject and unless you 
very clearly write as an individual. 

88348— 52— pt. 12 6 



4110 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

I should be very must interested in having Owen explore this possibility of a 
symposium. I should want him to make every effort to get divergent points of 
view expressed, falling, however, somewhere short of either Father Coughlin 
or Trotsky. I should detine the limits of legitimate opinion somewhere between 
the two poles of Beard and Browder. I should also make certain that we did not 
fall into the error of believing that this was one of those question wllich has two 
sides. It obviously has as many as authors can be found. 
Sincerely yours, 

[S] Fred. 

Frederick V. Field. 
Copy to Mr. Lattimore. 



Exhibit No. 666 

( Handwritten : ) Lattimore 
New York City, May 15, 19^0. 
Mr. Owen Lattiaiore, 

300 Oilman Hall, Johns Hopkins University, 

Baltimore, Maryland, 

Dear Owen : I have read the manuscript by Maurice Shore entitled "Lenin, 
Sun Yat-senism, and China." As to the jwssibilities of its publication, I feel 
reasonably confident in my views but as to a good deal of the content I feel 
much less certain. 

On the question of publication, while the manuscript contains a lot of ma- 
terial which it would be useful to have around in such handy form, it would 
not in my opinion find much of a market in pamphlet form. I hope therefore 
that you will be willing to struggle with a condensation. As a magazine article 
it could probably retain most of its present thesis and still have the usefulness 
for reference purposes that I have in mind. 

I should like to have a first-rate Marxist read the manuscript because there 
are a few points where I suspect the author has misinterpreted Lenin's teaching. 
I suggest this most uncertainly, hov?ever, for I don't know Lenin's writings at 
all well and I have never consistently gone through all the stuif he wrote on 
China. As a matter of fact the bringing together of those writings in this article 
seems to me its most interesting aspect. A. good deal is made in the article of 
Lenin's earlier disagreement with Sun Yat-sen over the latter's belief that by 
instituting quickly certain socialist measures the stage of capitalism could be 
altogether avoided, and the later alleged reversal of this jxisition on Lenin's 
part. This question touches the complicated controversy that you ran in Pacific 
Affairs a year or so ago between Edgar Snow and Asiaticus. It also touches 
a lot of the theoretical questions which have been disputed in all of Edgar 
Snow's writings. Without really knowing what I am talking about my impres- 
sion is that Lenin never maintained that the capitalist stage could be altogether 
skipped in China. My imderstanding of the Chinese Communist Party's doc- 
trine, moreover, is that it hopes to do no more than truncate the regular his- 
torical process, that is shorten the period between feudalism and socialism. This 
is an example of a theoretical point which I should like to have checked by 
someone who is really well versed in Marxist literature. 

Another illustration is the flat statement on the part of the author, on page 41, 
that Lenin and Sun Yat-sen did agree on the "elimination of the doctrine of the 
cla.ss struggle from the revolutionary program of China.'' 

I cannot believe that this is so as regards Lenin although of course it was true 
as regards Sun Yat-sen. The class struggle is at the very base of Marxist 
dialectics and I have never heard of any exception from it being made for a 
particular situation, and certainly not for China. 

At the opening of the article, the references to Maui-ice William's claim in- 
terested me because some years ago when I knew William quite well I docu- 
mented a rather elaborate memorandum for Shotwell on the relation between 
Sun Yat-sen" Third Principle — The People's Livelihood — and Maurice William's 
book. The Social Interpretation of History. I haven't looked up my memo- 
randum for a good many years — and it is very likely that if I did I could not 
find it. I remember, however, the central point in which we were then inter- 
ested. Maurice William claimed in his second book, Sun Yat Sen versus Com- 
munism, that Sun was converted from Comnmnism to a milder form of social 
reform because of his reading of The Social Interpretation of History. I re- 
member working out the chronology of the publication of William's book and 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4111 

the history of the single copy which apparently ever got to China, together with 
the chronology of Sun Yat-sen's lectures on the Three People's principles and 
finding pretty conclusive evidence that Williams claim was wholly unjustified. 
What apparently happened was that Sun Yat-sen, because of other influences 
bearing on his life, had come around to about the position which Maurice Wil- 
liam argued in his book and then had found the book and found in it a con- 
venient expression of these views. Consequently, in one of his final lectures in 
Canton when he first put forward the Three People's principles, it was fairly 
natural that he should quote this otherwise extremely obscure book. 

This point about Maurice William is of no vast importance in the manuscript 
under discussion except that if my interpretation is correct it calls for a modi- 
fication of two or three sentences. 

Let me know if I can do anything more with regard to this job. I am return- 
ing the manuscript herewith. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



Telephone : UNiversity 0100, Ext. 43 

Pacific Affairs 

Published Quarterly by The Institute of Pacific Relations 

Amsterdam — London — Manila — Moscow — New York — Paris — Shanghai — Sydney — Tokyo — 

Toronto — Wellington 

Please addi'ess reply to: 

300 Oilman Hall, 
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., May 9, lO.'fO. 
Mr. F. V. Field, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East o2n(l Street, New York City. 
Dear Fred : Herewith I am enclosing the manuscript of an article on "Lenin, 
Sun-Yat-Senism, and China," which I think may interest you. There are 48 
pages of it — much too long for Pacific Affairs undess very considerably cut. 
Before doing anything else, I am therefore writing to find out whether you may 
think the article is worth publishing separately as a pamphlet. If you do not 
think .so, but think that the article could be condensed to a length suitable for 
Pacific Affairs, I am willing to attempt the condensation. 
Yours very sincerely, 

/s/ OL 

Owen Lattimore. 



Exhibit No. 667 

AMERICAN council 

Institute of Pacific Relations, Incorporated 

1795 California Street, San Francisco — 129 East 52nd Street, New York City 

New York Citt, April 25, 1939. 
Air mail. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

Olympic Hotel, Seattle, Wash. 

Dear Mr. Carter: As you perhaps know, for some time a few members of the 
American Council staff have been forming a unit of the Book and Magazine Guild 
in my office. 1 am now informed that a bare majority of the members of the staff 
have joined the union which therefore makes tlie unit eligible for the negotiation 
of a contract. Before proceeding with this contract, however, I understand that 
the group intends to sign up two or tliree additional members of the staff so that 
they will represent a good deal more than a bare majority. 

I am writing you at this time because, in view of the progress which the office 
union is making, I rather expect to be offered a shop contract by them before you 
have returned from your trip. As I shall want to secure the approval of the 
Executive Committee and, in addition, of certain other Trustees, to any decision 
which I shall be inclined to recommend, I am writing to ask if you would be so 



4112 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

good as to send me by letter your preliminary thoughts on this subject. It is my 
present intention, if the contract which the otttce union offers closely resembles 
the contract which other units of tliat union have already entered upon with such 
organizations as the Foreign Policy Association, to recommend its appi'oval. This 
would mean the formal signing of a contract between the staff and myself as the 
representative of the employers. 

Unless the oftice union makes demands which I do not now anticipate, the 
contract will call for practically no changes in the present wage-and-hour scale. 
Nt)r will it call for any actual changes in our method of giving notice of termi- 
nation of einpltiyment, or leave of absence due to illness, vacations, and the like. 
It may involve our agreeing to what is known as a "preferential shop" whereby, 
in the employment of new persons, we would iirst give the union a chance to 
fill the vacancy from its own ranks, but where they are unable to supply a suit- 
able candidate, we could look elsewhere. It may also oblige us to set aside a 
moderate reserve which would be u.sed to guarantee salary payments for a certain 
number of weeks should the organization unexpectedly and suddenly be liquidated. 

Aside from the fact that I am personally sympathetic with the principle of 
unionization, its occurrence in my office has a rather definite advantage. The 
office union would set up a shop committee for the piirpose of presenting any 
demands or grievances and for the purpose of settling among themselves, if 
possible, problems in the office. This will mean that the salary scale and the 
salaries paid to individuals in the oflace will uo longer rest on the arbitrary deci- 
sions of the Secretary — a situation which I personally regard as highly unsatis- 
factory. It will mean that there will be a group responsibility for any decisions 
reached. The terms of the contracts which I have looked over, in i-elation to 
other organizations, present a salary scale which is, in practically every instance, 
considerably below what we now pay. This, to my mind, would not mean that 
we would reduce salaries to the union miniiunm but it would indicate that we 
had nothing to fear by way of group pressure for an increased salary scale. 

In the light of these remarks, I should appreciate it very mucli if you would 
send me an expression of your opinion on this whole subject. Without having 
the details of the proiiosed contract before you, I should like to know whether, 
in your opinion, it would be pi'oper and desirable for the American Council to 
enter into negotiations with the union and to conclude a contract, provided that 
tile details could be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties. Certain of 
our Trustees will, I think, look to you, among others, for advice on this matter 
when I bring it to their attention. It woidd therefore be very useful to me to 
have a general expression of your views on hand when the appropriate time 
comes. 

Sincerely yoiirs, 

(Signed) Fred 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 008 

Pencilled (Oakie) 
( Handwritten : ) See FVF to Yarnell, 6/1/40. 

New York City, May 31, 19^0. 
Mr. John H. Oakie. 

Dear Jack : I have just read your latest INPAREL with considerable interest 
for the subject of the Netherlands Indies is at the forefront of our minds as well 
as of yours. We had a discussion with some thirty to thirty-five people on 
Monday which was led by Admiral Yarnell and which I wish you could have 
attended for his point of view differs from your report in INPAREL at most 
points. Although there follow my summaries of some of his views, the meeting 
was a private one and he should not be (pioted by name. 

I am inclined to disagree with Yarnell in several places but it may interest 
you to know with refei'ence to the six items which you list on your second page 
that Yarnell's ideas run somewhat as follows : 

(1) That while Patavia may be nearly as far from Nagasaki as from Pearl 
Hai'bor, the prol)l»'m of fleet operations moving down from .lapan and west from 
Pearl Harbor seems to be altogether different. Japan's navy would move via 
its own possessions, the Mandated Islands, Formosa and Hainan, to say nothing 
of the China coast, whereas our navy could probably not even move straight 
across the general route now traveled by the clippers. It would probably be 
forced to go south of Australia. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4113 

(2) Yarnell believes that tlie Japanese navy is in first-rate sluipe and is ex- 
ceedingly well eqiiipiied relative to any opposition it is likely to face. It is not 
now being used in the China campaign with the exception of a few second-class 
cruisers and such ships. 

He says it possess not only the ships with which we are familiar but "a well- 
rounded fleet of supplementary craft for supply purposes and for tending air- 
jilanes, submarines, etc. He also reports with considerable ccmviction that it is 
now known that Japan is building 4r>.()()0-ton battleships and very likely from 
six to ten light cruisers which in speed and armaments surpass anything in the 
American navy. He went so far as to say that if Japan actually did turn out 
these cruisers she would have at the present moment command of the entire 
Pacific Ocean. ' ^ 

(;-{) It follows that Yarnell does not think that Japan is short on ;-ihipping 
from a naval point of view. From a supply point of view he indicates that the 
Japanese were able to take care of the very heavy demands put on their shipping 
in the first year of tlie China campaign, a demand which has now been very con- 
siderably felaxed. and that not only these .ships could be diverte<l to a new south- 
ward campaign btlt that a great deal of Japan's shipping which is now plying ihe 
regular trade routes could likewise be diverted. 

(4) Yarnell envisages a possible naval war between Japan and the United 
States as involving primarily a series of raids on each other. To that extent 
he would perhaps support your point that Japan's supply lines running soi;th 
through Formosa and Hainan would be vulnerable to attack. The point as 
y(m Inake it i8 open to question "attack by whom'r" If the United States actually 
declares war the answer is "by the United States." But there seems to be a 
grave question whether Japan's lines would be as vulnerable as our own. 

(5) Yarnell does not think highly of the Netherlands Indies defenses. He 
reported that while they had a few submarines and probably some good coastal 
guns and absolutely first-rate airplanes — although probably not more than two 
hundred of these — the local militia, made up largely of about 70,000 native troops, 
was not reliable. The point seems to be a good deal who gets to the Indies 
first. If it were possible for this goveriunent to send our ships there now, 
basing them perhaps on Singapore, the opinion seems to be that Japan, although 
provoked and angry, could not afford to launch a campaign. On the other hand, 
not one of us at our discussion believed that there was any possibility of a 
democracy such as ours taking such a drastic preventative step, I shoiild also 
like to comment with regard to your remark about the prompt Dutch round-up 
of fifth columnists in the Netherlands Indies, I am extremely skeptical on this 
point just as I would be if Congress followed to a logical conclusion the absurd 
definition of what constitutes a fifth column by tlirov.-ing in jail every alien in 
this country. It is not those people nor the actual German Nazi spies in the 
Nethei-lands Indies who constitute fifth columns but it is the reactionary, fascist- 
minded leaders in your own country. It was not, it seems to me, aliens or spies 
or undercover agents who sold out Poland and Norway but their own leading 
generals and a good nuinyof their cabinet members. Ditto for Holland. With 
a nuich more complicated situation and involving a good deal of historical 
explanation, ditto for Belgium and apparently for at least some armies in France. 
(Footnote: Please take a look at the Associated Farmers in California.) 

(6) While it is agreed that the Dutch, with the full cooperation of American 
and British interests, would destroy oil wells and cracking plants in the Indies, 
it is also generally agreed that Japan has enough fuel stored for extensive naval 
operations lasting from 12 to IS months. This comes from as authoritative 
sources as one can possibly find. In other words, that represents about the 
time required to put blown-u]) wells and machinery back into operation. It is 
also pointed out, although I don't think the point has been sufficiently grasped, 
that while we could put great pressure (m Japan through an economic embargo 
in the event of their in\ading southward, once they had established even a 
naval blockade around the Netherlands Indies and the adjacent regions they 
could put on an equallv or perhaps more effective embargo against the United 
States. 

It would be very interesting to learn from you whether the general views 
which you have put forward in INPAREL in this issue reflect military opinion 
in your part of the country. It would not surprise me at all to learn that it did 
for there seems to be no more agreement among those boys than among any 
pther group. 

Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



4114 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 669 

( Handwritten ) Parker 
Copy to EvZdJ 

New York City, April 9, 1940. 
Mr. Philo W. Parker, 

26 Broadway, New York City. 

Dear Mr. Parker: I wonder if I can ask your help in the preparation of an 
article on aviation gasoline in the Far East which we are writing for the Far 
Eastern Survey and would like to complete by next week. The occasion for the 
article arises from a notice in a paper just received from Netherlands Indies 
which announces that the Shell people have recently opened a high-octane gaso- 
line plant at Pladjos and plan to build a second one, to be completed by the end 
of the year. It was also announced that the Standard group is constructing a 
plant at Palembang which is to produce an average of 560 barrels a day. We 
should like very much to know whether these reports are accurate and, if so, to 
obtain a little more detail with regard to them. 

Available statistics do not help very much in straightening out tlie story of 
aviation fuel in the Pacific area and as this is very important in connection 
with U. S. -Japanese trade, it has seemed to us that the more accurate information 
we could unearth, the better. Japan, for instance, is reported to have imported 
a little over half a million barrels of aviation gasoline from the U. S. in 1939 
against a consumption of over two million barrels. 

Did Japan produce the remainder itself, or did it import aviation fuel from 
other sources? If high octane is to be produced in Netherlands Indies, is most of 
it likely to go to Japan? If so, will it affect the export of aviation fuel from 
California to Japan or will it more likely compete with Japanese refineries? 

There is then the question of whether gasoline of around 75 to 82 octane con- 
tent is exported to Japan and there blended to produce higher octane fuel or 
whether it is exported as 100-octane gasoline from the source. We have been 
told that some of the newer planes themselves are equipped to do the blending — 
a leading process, I believe, while in flight. 

I would very greatly appreciate it if you would permit my colleague, Miss 
van Zyll de Jong, and myself to have a talk with you or one of your associates 
sometime this week. As usual, we do not want to publish an article which is 
inaccurate. 

Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 670 



(Handwritten) Am. League for Peace & Democracy 

New York City, Decemher 20, 1938. 
American League for Peace and Democracy, 
112 East 19th Street, New York City. 
Dear Sirs : In reply to your request that the American Council of the Institute 
of Pacific Relations be represented by an observer at your forthcoming American 
Congress for Peace and Democracy, I am writing to say that I believe that several 
of our members will be in attendance. As you know, the natui'e of your work 
prevents our taking any ofticial part in activities of a political sort. Our mem- 
bership, however, is so chosen as to represent a fairly good cross section of va- 
rious types of occupations and activities in this country and in that way we are 
well assured that we will be unofficially represented at this sort of meeting. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field- 

f/g 

Freh) : The American Congress for Peace and Democracy wants us to send an 
observer to their meeting January 6-8, as we did last year. Will you take care 
of this? 

Kbeo. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4115 

CALL TO ACTION 

American Congress for Peace and Democracy 

January 6, 7, 8, 1939, Washington, D. C. Fifth National Congress, American 

League for Peace and Democracy 

To THE American People 

The world-wide offensive of fascism, which threatens the peace and democracy 
of every country including our own, requires immediate and energetic action by 
the American people. It requires American leadership and initiative to rally and 
organize the forces of democracy and peace. 

The forces of reaction within our own country are seeking by every open and 
concealed means to destroy our basic and democratic rights. Suppression of 
civil rights, attacks on the rights of labor, the promotion of the "red scare" and 
anti-Semitism, the fomenting of religious and racial hatreds, show the forming 
pattern of American Fascism. 

On a world scale the threat of Fascism brings with it the threat of a new World 
War. Renewed war preparations demonstrate that this menace has been in- 
creased by the Munich agreement. In China and Spain the theat is already a 
tragic reality. Millions have been slaughtered ; tens of millions are without 
homes or hope or bread. The war-makers liave served notice that they will wage 
the most ruthless warfare in history against the peoples of the world. 
. The United States cannot isolate itself from these developments. We cannot 
hope to remain aloof from a Fascist-instigated world war. Sooner or later we 
would become involved as we were in the last war. Our only hope is to prevent 
such a world war from developing; to use our international influence and eco- 
nomic power to stop Fascist aggression. No Munich agreements for Spain and 
China. 

To that end the American League for Peace and Democracy calls you to an 
extraordinary American Congress for Peace and Democracy. Let your repre- 
sentatives in the seventy-sixth United States Congress know the strength of your 
desire for peace. Come to Washington, D. C, on January 6th-8th. Make your 
voice heard in the demand for a new peace policy for America at the expiration of 
the present unneutral Neutrality Act. Help us work out a program for the de- 
fense of our democracy and for peace. 

We summon REPRESENTAxrvES of the organizations of the American people — 
trade unions, farm bodies, peace societies, religious organizations, fraternal 
orders, civic bodies, organizations of veterans, women and youth. At this Con- 
gress the democratic peace forces of America will map out a program for the de- 
fense of democracy and peace — a program based on the necessity to : Protect 

AND EXTEND DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS FOR ALL SECTIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: KeEP 

the United States out of war and help keep war out of the world. 

CONGRESS endorsed BY — 

(These endorsements are personal, not organizational) 

Rabbi Michael Alper, Associate Editor, "Reconstructionist" 

Sherwood Anderson, Writer 

Reverend Edgar R. Artist, Historian, Eastern Baptist Association of New York 

Roger Baldwin, Director, American Civil Liberties Union 

Lewis Alan Berne, President, Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists & 

Technicians 
George Biddle, Artist 
Crissie Birrell 

Professor Franz Boas, Columbia University, New York City 
John H. Bosch, President, National Farm Holiday Association 
Mrs. W. Russell Bowie, President, New York State Consumers League 
Hon. Usher L. Burdick, U. S. Representative, North Dakota 
John D. Butkovich, President, Croatian Fraternal Union of America 
Joseph Cadden, United States Chairman, World Youth Congress 
William F. Cochran, Vice President, Church League for Industrial Democracy 
Rabbi Samuel M. Cohen, Executive Director, United Synagogue of America 
Hon. John M. Coffee, U. S. Representative, Washington 
Howard Costigan, Executive Secretary, Washington Commonwealth Federation 



4116 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Jerome Davis, President, American Federation of Teachers 

John P. Davis, Secretary, National Negro Congress 

Harrington Dunbar 

Paul de Kruif, Writer 

Melvyn Douglas, Actor 

Theodore Dreiser, Writer 

Professor Henry Pratt Fairchild, New York University 

Dorothy Canfield Fisher, Writer 

Abram Flaxer, President, State, County & Municipal Workers of Amei-ica 

Miguel Garriga, Vice President, Hotel & Restaurant Employees International 

Alliance 
Albert Ghidoni, Secretary-Treasurer, District Council No. 9, Brotherhood of 

Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America 
Professor Willystine Goodsell, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York 

City 
Rudolph Harju, Secretary, Cooperative Unity Alliance 
L. O. Hartman, Editor, "Zions Herald" 
Clarence Hathaway, Editor "The Daily Worker" 
Donald Henderson, President, United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied 

Workers of America 
Alexander Hoffman, Genei-al Manager, Cleaners, Dyers & Truck Drivers Union 

Local 239, A. C. W., New York City 
Reverend William Lloyd Imes, St. James Presbyterian Church, New York City 
E. Stanley Jones, Missionary 

Rockwell Kent, President, United American Artists 
Joseph P. Lash. Executive Secretary, American Student Union 
David Lasser, President, Workers Alliance of America 
Max Lerner, Writer 

Dr. Kirtley F. Mather, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 
Bishop Francis J. McConnell, New York Area, Methodist Episcopal Church 
Rhoda E. McCuUoch, Editor, "The Womans Press" 
Katherine ^Mclnerny. Executive Secretary, League of Women Shoppers 
Lewis Merrill, President, United Office & Professional Workers of America 
Morris Muster, President, United Furniture Workers of America 
Professor Reinhold Neilmhr, Union Theological Seminary, New York City 
Samuel Oruitz, Writer 
Bishop Robert L. Paddock 
Reverend P^lini A. I'almquist, Executive Secretary, Philadelphia Federation of 

Churches 
Hon. James P. Pope, U. S. Senator, Idaho 

Mervyn Rathhorne, President, American Communications Association 
Reid Robinson, President, International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers 

of America 
Hon. Byron N. Scott, U. S. Representative, California 
Reverend Guy Emery Shipler, Editor, "The Churchman" 
Viola Brothers Shore, Writer 
Reverend H. Norman Sibley, University Heights Presbyterian Church, New York 

City 
Roliert G. Spivack, Secretary for the U. S., International Student Service 
Reverend William B. Spofford, Executive Secretary, Church League for Indus- 
trial Democracy 
Donald Ogden Stewart, President, League of American Writers 
Edward E. Strong, Secretary, Southern Negro Youth Congress 
Hon. Henry G. Teigan, U. S. Representative, Minnesota 
Reverend Worth M. Tippy, General Secretary Emeritus, Social Service Dept., 

Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America 
Rose Troiano 

Frank Tuttle, Motion Picture Director 

Professor David D. Vaughan, School of Theology. Boston University 
Mrs. A. H. Vixman, Former National Executive Director, Young Judaea 
Dr. Goodwin Watson, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City 
A. F. Whitney, President, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen 
Dr. Max Yergan, Director, International Committee on African Affairs 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4117 

NATIONAL OFFICERS, AMEKICAN LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY 

Hairy F. Ward, National Chairman 
Mrs. Victor L. Berjier, Vice Chairman 
Robert Morss I.ovett, Vice Chairman 
Margaret Forsyth, Acting Treasurer 

All organizations and groups that stand for democracy and peace are invited 
to elect delegates to the Congress. Organizations with memberships np to 200 
are entitled to. one delegate. Organizations with membership from 350 to 500 
are entitled to two delegates. Organizations with membership over 500 are 
entitled to three delegates. 

A registration fee of one dollar for every delegate will be charged to help meet 
the expenses of the Congress. 

National organizations are entitled to three delegates at a special registration 
fee of three dollars each. 

Delegates Credential Forji No. 1 

To be sent with registration fee to the National Office of the Ameri- 
can League for Feace and Democracy 

(Name of delegate) 
"(Street address) (City) (State) 

(Organization or group represented) 
(Address of organization or group) 
(Number of members) (Secretary or officer of organization) 



Delegates Credential Form No. 2 

To be retained by delegate as means of identification at Washington, 

D. C. 



(Name of delegate) 
""("str'eetaTldress) (City) (State) 

(Organization or group represented) 
(Address of organization or group) 
(Number of members) (Secretary or officer of organization) 

Send credential form No. 1 and fee, and address all inquiries to — 

AMERICAN league FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY 

268 Fourth Avenue 398 New York, New York 



Dr. Harrv F. Ward, National Chairman. Cltv Executive Committee : Eleanor Grannan. 
Chairman ; Rev. David Licorich : Arthur J. McLaughlin ; Isidore Sorkiu. Vice Chairman : 
Helen R. Brvan, Executive Secretary : Oscar Schneller. Acting Organization Secretary ; 
Albert Hvman, Treasurer ; Israel Amter ; Mrs. J. X. Cohen ; Abraham Feingold ; Jacob 
Mirsky ; Cvril Philip : Rev. Frederick Reustle : Katherine Terrill. Staff : William Males, 
Legislative ; Ruth Doltrer, National Minorities and Race Relations ; Cyrus S. Porter, 
Campaigns ; Brian Heald : Morris Engel. Education : Anna C. Schneiderman, W'omen ; 
Clifford Welch. Publications ; Gordon Sloane, Youth ; Ray Aversa, Trade Union ; Herman 
Stollev, Anti-Nazi Dept. ; Albert Prcntis, Cultural. Advisory Board : Prof. E. B. Burgum, 
John Cham.berlain, Malcolm Cowlev, Martha Foley, David Freeman, Rev. William Lloyd 
Imes, Milton Kaufman, Vito Marcantonio, Rev. A. Clayton Powell. Jr.. Rev. Herman F. 
Reissig, Elmer Rice. Prof. Margaret Schlaugh, Lee Slmonson, Prof. Robert K. Speer, 
Ashley P. Totten, Thomas Young 



4118 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

American League fob Peace and Democracy 

new york city division 

112 East 19th Street, New York City 

ALgonquin 4-9290 

IPK 
November 25, 1938. 

Dear Friend : The American Congress for I'eace and Democracy which will 
be held in Washington, D. C. on .lanuary 6-7-S, 1939, more than ever will focus 
the attention of the entire country and its lawmakers on the consolidation and 
strengthening of the forces for peace. To quote from Dr. Harry F. Ward's edi- 
torial in the November issue of The Fight, called "After Munich": 

"No ocean barriers, no tradition of isolation, no pacitist idealism, can pre- 
vent the United States from feeling the effects of the impetus the Munich 
agreement has given to Fascism as a world force. In due time the results 
will be seen and felt in the increased strength of Fascist movements and 
tendencies in Latin America and in Canada, and in the development of 
Fascist potentialities in the United Statues." 
Are we going to permit, through inertia, such potentialities to become realities 
in our country? In a country founded on the sacred principles of freedom of 
worship and of minorities, are we to remain passive in the face of the wrathful 
racial and religious persecution now unleashed? 

We believe it is absolutely necessary in these times to meet such challenges 
with unity of number, strength and effectiveness. This, our Congress, by its 
broad and widely inclusive character, will achieve with the cooperation of allied 
groups and individuals. 

We are contident you will bring this vital Congress to your organization, elect 
delegates and return the enclosed credential blank as soon as iwssihle. 

We are ready to send a speaker to your organization. Please use enclosed 
postcard for this purpose. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Guy Emery Shipler 

Rev. CxjY P^mery Shipler, 

Editor, The Churchman. 
UOPWA No IH. 
Enc. 

(Handwritten) 52-36 



Exhibit No. 671 



April 11, 1939. 



Memorandum to : AB. 
From : FVF. 

Would you kindly inquire of the Department of State what is the safest 
way of sending material (both letters and printed materials such as the Survey) 
to State Department oflicials stationed in China? We have noted in letters from 
such persons that they have taken great care to indicate mailing by United 
States gunboats, etc., and they have also asked us to write by registered mail. 
Is the best thing to address all communications to the Department of State, for 
them to forward through their regular channels? 

When you hear from the Department, will vou let me know? 

f/g 

New York, N. Y., April 12, 1939. 
Department of State, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sirs : We are most anxious to learn of the safest way to send materials 
(both letters and printed matter) to State Department officials stationed in 
China, and we are wondering if it is best to address all communications to the 
Department of State, Washington, D. C, to be forwarded through tlie official 
mail pouch. 

1 shall greatly appreciate it if you would inform me whether the above-men- 
tioned is the best procedure, or if yon have another other suggestion to offer. 
Sincerely yours, 

Annette Blumenthal, Subscription Manager. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4119 

Exhibit No. 672 

November 10, 1936. 

General Victor Yakhontoff, 

522 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 

Dear General Yakhontoff : My reply from the Social Science Research Coun- 
cil with regard to your proposed volume on Outer Mongolia is extremely nega- 
tive. Its Executive Director. Robert T. Crane, writes me that "there is no way 
in which this Council can provide funds for the proposal of General Yakhon- 
j.^j^- * * * The Council has come to limit itself to advice directly to sources 
of funds when they ask for advice on a proposal made directly to them by the 
proixinent." This information is somewhat contrary to the impression which 
HoUanil and I had. 

I am somewhat at a loss to know what further move I can make on your 
behalf. The largest source of funds, of course, is 'the Rockefeller Foundation, 
l)ut because of the grants which they have already made to us we cannot ap- 
proach them on an individual project. What I could do, and would be more 
than glad to do, however, is to recommend your project after you had initiated 
the idea with them. That is, if you took the matter up directly with the Foun- 
dation, then suggested that they refer to us, I would be glad to give them a 
favorable impression. You, however, may have some other idea as to how we 
may be more directly helpful, and if you do I hope you will not hesitate to 
conuuunicate with me. 



Sincei-ely yours, 



Frederick V. Field. 



Social Science Research Council 

j Staff : Robert T. Crane, Executive Director ; Donald Young ; John E. Pomfret ; Carolyn E. 
I Allen, Controller 

] . 280 PARK AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY 

Cable Address : SOCSCIENCE, New York 

1 Members — American Anthropological Association : Alfred M. Tozzer, Harvard University ; 
I Robert Redflekl. University of Chicago ; Clark Wissler, American Museum of Natural 

I History. American Economic Association : Alvin H. Hansen, University of Minnesota ; 

Sumner H. Slichter, Harvard University ; Frank H. Knight, University of Chicago, 
American Historical Association : Arthur M. Schlesinger, Harvard University ; Guy S. 
Ford, University of Minnesota : Roy P. Nichols, University of Pennsylvania. American 
Po'itical Science Association : William Anderson, University of Minnesota ; Charles E. 
Merriam, University of Chicago ; Lindsay Rogers, Columbia University. American 
Psychological Association : Gardner Murphy, Columbia University ; A. T. Pofifenberger, 
Columbia University; Gordon W. Allport, Harvard University. 'American Sociological 
Society ; Thorsten Selliii, University of Pennsylvania : Shelby M. Harrison, Russell Sage 
Foundation ; William F. Ogburn, University of Chicago. American Statistical A.-so- 
ciation : Sevmour L. Andrew, American Telephone & Telegraph Company ; Edwin B. 
Wilson, Harvard University : William A. Berridge, Metropolitan Life Insurance Com- 
jiianv. Members at Larse : Carl L. Alsherg, Stanford University: Isiah Bowman, Johns 
(Hopkins University : John Dickinson, T'niyersity of Pennsylvania ; Charles H. Judd, Uni- 
versity of Chicago ; Wesley C. Mitchell, Columbia University. 

November 3, 1930. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

Secretary, American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 
129 East 52 Street, New York, N. Y. 
Dear Mr. Field: Without circumlocution, I might as well say at once that 
there is no way in which this Council can provide funds for the proposal of 
General Yakhontoff. The situation is simply that the Council has no funds at 
its di-sposal for work of this kind, nor would it seem to me desirable for the 
Council to examine the merits of this particular proposal with a view to seeking 
funds, since experience has shown us that this is an ineffective procedure in 
raising funds. The Council has come to limit itself to advice on a proposal made 
directly to them by the proponent. 
Sincerely yours, 

Robert T. Gbane. 
RTC/set 



4120 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

November 2, 1936. 
Dr. KoBERT T. Crane, 

Social Science Research Council. 

230 Park Avenue, New York, New York. 

Dear Dr. Crane: General Victor Yakhoutoff has presented to us a research 
pi'oject in which we are interested but toward which, unfortunately, it is impos- 
sible for us to put up any funds, and I have wondered if his scheme would fall 
into the interests of the Social Science liesearcii Council. Briefly, his projwsal 
is this: that he prepare a hook on the Outer Mongolian People's Republic, con- 
taining a historical account, general description of tlie country and its people, and 
full information on current economic, social, and political developments. General 
Yakhoutoff has secured the promise of documentary assistance in Moscow, an<l 
knowing something of the niaterinl that exists in Russian and the cooperation 
with Russian authorities which Yakhoutoff has secured on i)revious volumes, 1 
interpret this as a very important and favorable factor. He believes that he 
should spend around three months in Moscow and then proceed to Outer Mon- 
golia for a period of several moi-e months, the whole project to take roughly a 
year. His publishei's. Coward McCann, have agreed to take the book and have 
also, I believe, agreed to advance at least a portion of the funds required. 

General Yakhoutoff is the author of three volumes on the Far East : The 
Chinese Soviets, Russia and the Soviet Union in the Far East, and Eyes on 
Japan. All three contained iiseful summaries of existing material and a certain 
amount of origiiuil research. The latter is particularly true of the volume i)n 
Chinese Communism, and it will have to be nioi-e true of the one on Outer Mon- 
golia because of the alisence of secondary source material. 

General Yakhoutoff served luider the Czarist regime as a high military officiid 
and liad considerable experience in tlie Russian Far East and as military attache 
to the Russian embassy in Tokyo. He was one%f the first emigres to make his 
peace with the Soviet authorities and as far back as 1!)2!) or 11)?>() was taken into 
their conhdenc-e and given free access to the IMoscow archives pertinent to the 
questions he was then investigating. 

I have no idea whether this proposition will interest you. We should like to 
see the hook written, but the financing of it does not quite fall within our terms 
of reference. It is for this reason that I am taking the lil)erty of a.sking whether 
you would be interested in going into it further. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 673 

November 6, 1939. 
FVF from ECC : 

Parrar and Rinehart wcadd like your suggestions as to a kind of list to circulate 
concerning "Humane Endeavour" by Haldore Hau.son. 

Would Amerasia like a review copyV Can one of your staff easily supply me 
with a good list of magazines which should receive review copies? 



Exhibit No. 674 

Hotel Richmond, 
Geneva, Switzerland, 1th September, 1937. 
Frederick V. Field, Esq., 

129 East 52nd Street, New York Citii, N. Y., 

United States of America. 
Dear Fred : Tliere were two reasons for my cabling you to send eoijies of 
Amerasia from the beginning in separate mailings to Moscow. The first was 
because Motylev had only recei\ed the first issue, the second was because he 
understood you had sent him eight copies of the July issue, but the package had 
never reached him. He was a little disturbed that you liad published his article 
written for Pravda without consulting him. He realized that any journal had a 
perfect right to use an ai-ticle appearing in a newspaper, but I think he felt that 
the close relationship which he thinks exists between Amerasia and the IPR would 
call for consultation in advance. He had not seen the July Amerasia and had 
the feeling that the article which he had written for the specialized constituency 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4121 

of Pravda was not suitable for the general Amerasia audience. I told him that 
I had read the article in the home of a friend and that it seemed to me admirably 
suited to Ai)ient.'^i(i''i audience. 

To make doubly sure he gets a cop.v I am now sending- him one of my own 
copies which has just arrived from China. 

While I am on the subject of Amerasia, may I congratulate yon on the very 
penetratini;' statement which you made in the July issue on page 194 under the 
heading "Politics in Tokyo." 

Etienne Dennery, one of the closest French students of Far Eastern alTairs told 
me that he had never heard of the existence of Amerasia, and I suggest that your 
circulation department send him one or two sample copies and a subscription 
blank. 

I have read with care and profit every issue of Amerasia. I see no reason 
whatever for it to continue its existence separate from the American Council. 
I think the arguments in favor of its becoming an American Council publication 
are overwhelming. 

Sincerely yours, 

[t] Edward C. Oaeteb. 



LoxDON, August 25, 1937. 
NLT 
INPAREL, 

New York: 

Send Motylev all Amerasias fn)m beginning separate mailings. Stop. Cable 
your views my retpiesting all councils immediate report activities enabling their 
publics understand nature Far Eastern crisis. Also their suggestions program 
Pacitic Council InternationJil Secretariat in present situation. 

Carter. 



Exhibit No. 075 

March 4th, 1936. 
Frederick V. Fikld, Esq.. 

Rainier Club, Seattle. 

Dear Fred : This is to acknowledge the telegram reading as follows : 

"Bridges has taken first papers out but cannot become full citizen for 
another year Stop Rowell has accepted." 

Another letter is going forth to you today which explains my inquiry regard- 
ing Bridges. 

It is most .satisfactory that you have succeeded in getting Chester Rowell to 
take charge of publicity at Yosemite. Doubtless you will be writing to tell me of 
your arrival on March lOtli and the details of the arrangements you have made. 
Sincerely yours, 

Edward C. Carter. 



Exhibit No. 676 

[Telegram] 

1936 Mak 1' AM 3 14 
FV.') ISNM San Francisco, Calif. 1 

Edward C. Carter. 

129 East 52 8t., N. Y. C: 

Bridges has taken first papers out Init cannot become full citizen for another 
year Stop Rowell has accepted. 

Fred. 



Exhibit No. 677 
Memorandum 

November 21, 1939. 
To : F. V. Field. E. C. Carter, E. J. Tarr, P. C. .Tessup. 
From : Liu Yu-Wan. 
In re : Chinese Denial of Recent Domei News Agency Reports. 

In view of the fact that the Domei News Agency has been repeatedly spreading 
the rumors regarding the estrangement of the relations between the Kuomintang 



4122 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

and the Chinese Cominnnist Party, you may be interested in learning that Dr. Hu 
Shih received a telegram from Chungking yesterday (dated November 19th) 
concerning a statement published by Sin Hua Jib Po (the organ of the Chinese 
Communist Party) on November 2nd, the gist of whicli follows : 

"(1) Domei Ne\\s Agency reported that the Chinese Communist Party has 
requested the Central Government that Cliina's Northwest be sovietized. This 
is groundless. The Chinese Conuiiunist Party will cooperate to tlie bitter end 
with the Kuomintang in upholding the National United Front and in endeavoring 
to achieve victory for National Resistance and realize the Three People's 
Principles. 

"(2) Domei News Agency also alleged that the Eighth Route Army has been 
withdrawing from Shansi to Shensi. This is ridiculous. The Eighth Route Army 
has not only not withdrawn a single soldier to Northern Shensi but also has 
recently, in cooperation with other national units, taken a toll of more than 
10,0(X) enemy troops in the Southwest of Shansi. 

"(3) Domei reported that General Chu Teh had flown to Moscow. This is also 
false, in view of the fact that General Chu has never left the Front in North 
China since the War." 

The declaration also added that the Japanese Army in consequence of its fail- 
ure both militarily and politically in China has chosen to make an endeavor 
to estrange the relations between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Nationalist 
Party with the view towards jeopardizing China's good relations with the foreign 
powers. 

(*See. for example, New York Times, Oct. 27, 1939.) 



Exhibit No. 678 

Mr. Holland — for your information 

Chatham House, 
St. James's Square. London, S. W. I., Iftli Januam, 1935. 
Frederick V. Field. Esq., 

129 East 52nd Street, Ne^v York. 

Dear Field : You will, I hope, like the review which "P. J." has given of the 
"Economic Handbook" in the current "International Affairs," which is out 
today. 

You doubtless know that "P. J." is a highly confidential nom-de-plume for F. 
Ashton-Gwatkin, C. M. G., who is a Foreign Oflice official and head of the Jap- 
anese section. He is a member of the IPR committee and has a high standing 
as an authority on the Far East. 

You know, of course, that none of us are supposed to know this nom-de-plume, 
and no reference should be made in any of our letters or publications which 
would give anyone the clue as to who "P. J." is. 

While I am on this subject, would you please tell Catherine Porter that I 
have just been talking with Miss Cleeve about Miss Porter's enquiry as to who 
John Keith is. This is the nom-de-plume for E. H. Carr, of the Russian section 
of the Foreign Office. Catherine wanted to know how to describe him in the 
Who's Who of "Pacific Affairs." Tell her that of course no reference should be 
made to him by his correct name, neither should any reference be made to his 
connection with the Foreign Office. She can describe him, however, as "An 
English authority on Soviet Russia." 
Sincerel.v yours, 

[t] Edward C. Carter. 



Exhibit No. 679 

Memorandum on Preliminary Meeting of the American Delegation 

October 27, 1944. 
To : Philip C. Jessup. 

William C. Johnstone. 

Frederick V. Field. 

Rose Yardumian. 
From : Raymond Dennett. 

It seems unlikely that, with the time at our disposal, we shall be able to get 
to any really definitive statements of fundamental agreement among the American 
delegation. We ought, however, to be able to do two things : 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4123 

1. Asrree as to what line American public opinion would take as the result 
of a given line of action by another power in the Far East. (What would 
be the reaction of the American public on internal dissension within China, 
on refusal of the British to relinquish some portion of their control of India, 
too.) 

2. Identify major differences of opinion on various points within the 
American delegation which can be amplified by getting those who differ most 
vehemently to state their position in brief notes which are to be circulated 
to the entire delegation before January. 

We have brought down three previously prepared statements which can be 
circulated at the appropriate time : 

1. A statement on a possible position on the internal problems of China. 

2. A statement on American attitudes on colonial problems. 

3. A brief statement on what might be a minimum program for the political 
treatment of Japan. 

The first two statements are couched in terms of what the American public is 
likely to feel if certain things do or do not happen, the last is of a more technical 
character, in which technical knowledge of tlie situation in Japan is assumed. 

To start the meeting off in a lively fashion, I would suggest something along 
the following line : 

1. A general statement by PCJ of the nature of IPR conferences, and the 
purpose of this meeting. Included in this would be a statement that we are 
not seeking to establish a '"line" to be taken by the American delegation, but 
to do two things : 

(a) To acquaint members of the delegation with each other's points 
of view so tliat when they speak in roundtable they can truthfully say 
that their opinion agrees with, or is in disagreement with other American 
opinion. 

( ft ) To discover whether we can agree on a minimum American posi- 
tion which we will maintain if pushed into any corners by other delega- 
tions. 

2. A brief statement by Fred Field drawn from past conferences illustrat- 
ing other examples of the kind of problems faced at these affairs than those 
mentioned by PCJ. 

3. Supporting comment by WCJ on the basis of his attendance at Atlantic 
City, with the suggestion that we may find it desirable at Hot Springs to 
meet as a body from time to time to compare notes and to see whether we 
individually are accurately reflecting the opinion of the group in some of 
the problems presented. 

4. To illustrate what we mean, to turn immediately to the question of th»; 
internal situation in China, upon wliich they have "been given a suggested 
position. PCJ, FVF, or Owen Lattimore might be asked to give a brief 
statement of the internal situation, pointing out the line taken by the Chinese 
at Atlantic City, and saying that we have to be prepared to deal with this. 
In connection with the prepared comment, it is worth pointing out : 

(«) It does not deal with the facts of the situation at all as each 
delegate can obviously talk to that point in accordance with his own 
knowledge of tlie facts. 

(&) It does deal with what American public opinion is likely to be if 
the Chinese take certain kinds of action. 

Is the delegation agreed that American public opinion would react 
as stated if the Chinese took any of thfe actions mentioned? If we agree, 
then we can always fall back upon this line as a more or less minimum 
position. 

5. Turn to the prepared agenda as circulated and to start off talking about 
ti-eatment of Japan using the preparetl statement to stir up opening comment. 

6. The afternoon session can be started in the same way with the prepared 
statement on dependencies. 

In general the limited objectives of the meeting as stated above call for brief 
discussion of a number of points to a place where definite differences of view- 
points emerge, and exhaustive discussion of only those points on which there 
appears to be a good chance of getting a pretty general agreement. I would 
suggest, therefore, that the Cliairman periodically try to summarize what the 
general opinion on a given point is or what the conflicting attitudes are. If he 
gets away with his summarization, we shall have in the recorders' minutes a 
statement of general agreement ; if he accurately states the differences, he can 



4124 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

then try to persuade individuals to make brief notes and send them to me. I 
would suggest that if WCJ, FVF, or RD pitch in to help the Chairman if, at 
any point, they think they have identified aeneral agreement or areas of differ- 
ences. If the Chairman is met with a blank silence upon the introduction of a 
new topic (as may be likely as we approach the cocktail hour), Mrs. Stewart and 
Miss Farley might be called upon to lead off in a provocative manner : 

On some points it might be useful to try the technique \;sed successfully at the 
Conference Committee meeting last month and ask one or two people to draft 
brief statements of their positions during lunch or dinner for presentation at the 
following session : 

It may be desirable to get in a brief statement at some point on 
(a) Transportation arrangements, 
(ft) The fact that Virginia is dry and the obvious conclusions to draw. 



Exhibit No. 680 

Pacific Affairs 

the institute of pacific relatioxs 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

11 Heathcroft. Hamostead Way, London, N. W. 11 

Office of the Editor, 
129 East 32nd Street, New York City, 12 January. 19^^ 
Frederick V. Field, Esq., 

American Council. Institute of Pacific Relations. 
129 East 52nd Street, New York City, U. S. A. 

Dear Fr?:i>: Although I have been so long in commenting on the material you 
have sent me about Amerasia I have felt shielded by the fact that I, myself, had 
had no i-eply to my long letter to you of November second. I was getting ready 
this morning to be the first to write when I received your letter of December 
thirty-first, which puts you delinitely ahead of me. 

First your general memorandum cm the new magazine. I think this is ex- 
tremely good, and have no modifications to suggest, and only one question to ask — 
are you going to ask for material from non-Americans who are not resident in 
America such as Freda Utley and George Taylor? There is also Dr. Herbert 
Rosinski whose address is : Christian Student Movement House, Russell Square, 
London, W. C. I. Rosinski's positi(»n in (lermany has become untenable because 
of one Jewish grandfather. He has no leftist afliliations or, so far as I know, 
sympathies. He has for a long time been in Germany concerned witli questions 
of policies regarding Japan and the Far p]ast. Owing to this he has an excep- 
tional insight into the not always very closely fitting relationship between the 
propaganda and the h'calijolitik aspects of such questions. 

There is no particular comment to be made on the subject of Colegrove's letter 
to you about the magazine, except that I have a dubious feeling about the name 
Amerasia which is like his only more durable. I note in your letter received 
today that you are planning to print the name superimposed on a map of the 
North Pacific. If my memory of the map of this part nf the world is correct, the 
result would be to have "Amer" jirinted on the map of Asia and "Asia"' printed 
on the uiap of America, although of course you could get "Asia"' back into Asia 
and "Amer" back into America by printing the word "Amerasia"' up side down. 
This in itself might be acceptable as a comment on the tempter of our times 
but perhaps slightly adolescent. I admit however that I have no better title to 
suggest. 

One particular question: Is the magazine an organ of the American Council? 

Now for tlie suggestion of turning part of my letter into an article. This has 
got me all fiustered and fiattered. From your long silence, I had begun to 
develop a sinking feeling that I had committed just another blundering amateur 
analysis worth only the silent horror of you and your friends. Naturally, on 
the rebound, I am tickled to death at your willingness to print my opinions, even 
though this too may indicate that you feel my amateurism has merely a 
momentary usefulness. 

I am enclosing a reworking of the material which I hope you will find 
satisfactory. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4125 

With reference to your mention of the fact that you are negotiating for an 
article from Reishchauer, I am enclosing herewith an article which he sent me 
for Pacific Affairs. You may wish to take this over from me. It is too late 
for inclusion in the March number of Pacific Affairs and may be out-dated by 
June. It has also a number of touches which might make it unsuitable for 
Pacific Affairs without damaging it in the least for the kind of magazine 
you are planning. 

Don't think from anything I have said above that I am snorting and prancing 
in a nasty way about what I think about what you think about what I think 
and so on. As you know, I really am only groping my way toward an under- 
standing of what I think about what I think. I hope you won't mind if I 
c(mtinue to send you an occasional memorandum. If you will criticize any such 
material in the closest possible way, it would do me the invaluable service of 
giving me a firm point on which to steer — even if I don't evetually steer in that 
direction. 

With all the best, 
Yours, 

[s] OL 

[t] Owen Lattimore. 

P. S. (inked in) — l^ou said that in my original draft, which was hastily dic- 
tated and unrevised, some phrases were open to question. Please use your dis- 
cretion in editing the amplified version. Cut or add. The article will iiot make 
me a roaring, popular favorite, and therefore all the more it ought to be 
invulnerably worded. 



Exhibit No. 681 



139 East 52nd Street, 
New York, N. Y., Mar eh 9, 1943. 
Frederick V. Field, Esq., 

Council for Pan-Amerioan Democracy, 

112 East 19th Street, Neiv York, N. Y. 
Dear Friend : I hope you enjoyed Major Eliot's scathing attack on Sokolsky in 
today's Tribune as much as I did. Sokolsky certainly had it coming to him. 
Sincerely yours, 

Edward C. Carter. 



Exhibit No. 682 



Hawau Group — Ex<?cutive Committee : Rilev H. Allen. Chairman ; A. L. Dean, Vice Chair- 
man ; Prank C. Atherton, Treasurer ; Charles F. Loomis, Secretary ; Robbing B. Ander- 
son : Paul S. Bachman ; Peter H. Buck ; David L. Crawford : W. F. Dillingham ; Gerald 
W. Fisher ; Peyton Harrison ; Shao-ehang Lee ; Frank B. Midkiff ; Iga Mori ; Philip S. 
Piatt ; Oscar F. Shepard ; Yasutaro Soga ; Hugh C. Tennent ; Heaton L. Wrenn 

american council 

Institxtte of Pacific Relations 

501 Dillingham Building 

HONOLULU, HAWAII 

:\rAY 2, 1940. 
Mr. Fbedebick V. Field, 

American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East 52nd Street, Xew York, N. Y. 
Dear Fred : This will introduce Lt. Colonel George E. Arneman, who for the 
past three years has been one of the most useful and active members of the 
Hawaii group, IPR. 

He is the one who engineered the two Schofield conferences for us and has 
been a meuilier of several of our study groups. He was the G-2 intelligence 
pfRcer at Schofield Barracks and has had two different tours as military attache 
in Baltic countries. 

88348— 52— pt. 12 7 



4126 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

I want him to see the library and jreneral workings of the Top Floor and hope 
it will be possible for him to participate in one of your regional conferences. 
His immediate assignment is to the state of Maine. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Chas. 

[t] Charles F. Loomts, Secretary. 



Exhibit No. 683 

Mabch 20, 1939. 
FVF from ECC : 

Enclosed is a copy of an air mail letter just received from Captain Carlson 
which is self-explanatory. 

From one point of view I wish that Captain Carlson could have kept his 
position in the Navy Department. 

Have you any suggestions as to ways in which the public here and in the Far 
East can profit by his new freedom? 



Exhibit No. 684 



Hawaii Group — Hxecutlve Committee : Peter H. Buck, Chairman ; Frank E. Midkiff, Vice 
Chairman ; Frank C. Atherton, Treasurer ; Charles F. Loomls, Secretary ; Riley H. Allen ; 
Robbins B. Anderson ; Paul S. Bachman ; Royal N. Chapman ; David L. Crawford ; A. L. 
Dean ; W. F. Dillingham ; Shao-Chang Lee ; Iga Mori ; Philip S. Piatt ; Oscar F. 
Shepard ; Yasutaro Soga ; Hugh C. Tennent ; Heaton L. Wrenn 

American Council 

institute of pacific relations 

316 Dillingham Bldg., Hdnolulu, T. H. 

July 2, 1937. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

129 East 52nd Street, New York City. 

Del\b Fred : On receipt of your letter regarding bigger and better textbooks 
for the social science teachers of America I immediately wired you : 

"Expect no difficulty financing 1,500 dollars for 750 books. Will confirm 
clipper Monday. Stop. Need books early fall." 

As I was able to get the Atherton Estate to have a meeting during the day and 
guarantee the $1,500 (that was the only thing I could do as the Superintendent 
of Schools is in the Orient and Barnes, the principal of Kamehameha school, is 
on the mainland and I could not get advance orders from them), I sent you 
another wire so that you and Helen could get busy immediately getting the 
manuscripts to press ! 

"Hereby confirm order — committee hopes price includes maps, pictures (we 
think this is essential). Progressive and coast schools should easily absorb 
balance — send copy for promotion circulars. (I thought that I might de- 
cide to print some circulars for distribution to the delegates at the World 
Education Conference and knew that your office has more advertising brains 
than ours so thought you v">nld be willing to prepare the copy for a circular.) 
Send clipper regarding Los Angeles set-up. ( Before acknowledging Sprout's 
letter I wanted your reactions to my queries and suggestions regarding 
our work in Los Angeles this fall — I especially refer to my clipper letters of 
June 2, June 19, and June 22, which I trust you received.)" 

I must apologize for bombarding you with radiograms regarding Carter's query 
about my going to Manila. The reason I seemed impatient was because I had to 
decide that week whether to keep my booking to the mainland in August as there 
are long waiting lists on all the steamers this summer. I have not received an 
answer from my cable to Carter of June 24 and as I received your radiogram 
of June 29, "ukge you go Los Angeles as coast work must develop rapidly", I 
decided to keep to my original schedule as given in my letter of June 2. I hope 
that you can give a full week to Los Angeles and can arrive there as near Sep- 
tember 4 as possible. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4127 

I have written Mrs. Ward privately and unofficially, asking her if she coiild 
spend September and October in Los Angeles assisting me with the financial 
campaign in case I have a secretary and she can be spared from the San Fran- 
cisco office. She replied that she would be very happy to do this if the matter (an 
be arranged. Unless there is some Los Angeles person in milid as a permanent 
secretary, I think that using ISIrs. Ward would be the liest plan. If you approve, 
kindly make the necessary arrangements with the San Francisco office or 
authorize me to. 

This week we hung leis around the Leebrick and Blakeslee families and they 
are guests at an I. P. R. dinner being held tonight at the Pacific Club. P>lakeslee 
is going to speak on "American Foreign Policy in the Light of Coming Philippine 
Independence." C. H. Lowe, the flood relief man who was at Yosemite, also will 
be one of the guests. 

The other day we had the jileasure of entertaining Takaki's friends, D)ctor 
and INIrs. Kawai. He is assistant librarian at Toyko Imperial University. Mary 
Pickford and Jeannette MacDonald arrived yesterday on their honeymoons but I 
don't think I will interrupt their play to ask for subscriptions for Los Angeles. 
There also is a young Vanderbilt here who seems to be having a good time. Is 
he one of your relatives, and, if so, should we do anything for him? 

The Navy Intelligence Department tells me that H. C. Fornwall, one of 
DuPont's man in Japan who arrived yesterday, has the low-down on the miliiary 
situation in Japan, so I have just asked him to have lunch with five or six of 
the keymen in our recent Far Eastern study group, giving them a chance to 
pump him. 

With kindest personal regards. 
Sincerely, 

[s] Chas. 

[t] Charles F. Loomis. 

CFL : db 

Via airmail. 

Cc via clipper. 

(Handwritten:) 

P. S. — Be sure and give me your ideas regarding Los Angeles membership and 
goals — and office program set up [s] L. 



Exhibit No. 68.5 

6 iNlEaJciER Circle, 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, December .}, 19,1 'i. 
Frederick V. Field, Esq., 

Secretary, American Council Institute of Pacific Relations, 
129 East Fifty-second Street, New York, Neiv York. 
Deab Fred: I was very glad indeed to learn that when Joe Barnes retired you 
had consented to take his place. Because Jo and I would like to cooperate in every 
way we can it is particularly hard to decline your first request. Unfortunately, 
the job I have undertaken here is proving to be a much longer assignment than 
I had bargained for and the state of our finances simply will not permit us the 
luxury of responding. I can only promise that once this job is succeedtnl by 
one which is somewhat more remunerative we will be quick to return to the roll 
of your faithful contributors. 
Sincerely yours, 
EC :MMA 

[s] Everett Case. 

Exhibit No. 686 

October 7, 1937. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

San Francisco. 
Dear Fred : Thanks for your wire. I am somewhat apprehensive as to the 
story which reached the newspapers concerning my Washington speech. The 
situation was something like this : A week or ten days ago I talked to a meeting 
of Quakers in Philadelphia. Thei-e were present at the meeting several repre- 
sentatives of the National Council for the Prevention of War, and in response 
to their request I gave them a copy of the manuscript. This Wednesday, that is. 



4128  INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

yesterday, I attended the annual conference of the National Council in Wash- 
ington and opened the discussion on the topic, "What Should Be the Objec- 
tives of American Policy?" After the meeting one of their people confessed that 
slie had issued a release to the papers based not upon my remarks yesterday, but 
upon the manuscript of the Philadelphia speech. I am still ready to stand by the 
latter, but I am somewhat suspicious of the selection and arrangement of state- 
ments which were made by the representative of a group which takes a rather 
limited isolationist point of view. 

As a matter of fact, at the meeting yesterday I said very little about neutrality 
except to emphasize more strongly than I had in Philadelphia its obvious limi- 
tations as a policy in this situation. Knowing the attitude of Libby and of this 
group, I made the iiurden of my remarks an insistence on the tact that we are 
heavily and irrevcx^ably involved in the Far East and that we must necessarily 
work out a long-run constructive policy based on the principle of cooperative 
action. Proliably it did not go over very well, but I am sorry that if there was to 
be a new.spaper story it was not based on this line of thought rather than on the 
questicm of applying the Neutrality Act. I still think that there is a valuable 
safeguard in this neutrality position which makes it an instrument of policy not 
to be lightly tossed overboard; but it increasingly apparent that it does not deal 
with the major problems in this particular case. 

In regard to the Survey article, too. it now appears in the use which has been 
made of it that the qualifications, conditions, and restrictions upon which the 
argument is based, although explicitly stated, are not given a prominent enough 
position. I suppose that one always faces the difficulty that other people will 
abstract the particular parts of an argument that support their case and so dis- 
tort the conclusions of the author. 

While in Wasliington I tried without nuicli success to find out the meaning of 
the President's speech. There wasn't much more information available than the 
speculations which the newspapers had carried. One political cynic suggested 
an angle which is perhaps not to be overlooked. In his view the speech was an 
adroit political move in the President's best manner and one taken quite without 
regard to the international situation. FDK was on his way back to Washington 
faced with the most difficult personal problem of his career — the Black case. 
. He was definitely on the spot, with absolutely no one on whom he could shift the 
responsibility this time. According to this view he took his dramatic way of 
blotting out the Black issue at just the time when it was most embarrassing. 
For three days now and for some time to come the newspapers are filled with the 
imi)lications of the speech and its respon.se here and abroad. In this way the 
President has resorted to the old trick of diverting attention to foreign affairs 
in the face of a difficult domestic situation. 

I cannot believe that this is the whole story, although it may account for 
the timing of the speech and for its emphasis. It is difficult to believe that as 
adroit a politician as FDR would make a move so effective in domestic politics 
unconsciously. On the other hand, we have known for a long time that he has been 
seeking an opportunity to make a dramatic move in world ix)litics. No occasion 
could have been more favorable from an emotional point of view, whatever possi- 
bility there may be that the proposal for some effective action can actually be 
implemented. Someone who had read a good many newspaper connuents on the 
speech said that he was impressed by the fact that those parts of the speech which 
received the strongest approval were the sentences declaring the President's 
determination to keep the country out of war. 

At the same time there cannot be much doubt that the neutrality position 
which was already crumbling as a result of moral indignation over Japan's 
actions has rceived a tremendous l)low. Probalily this speech definitely removes 
the possibility that the Neutrality Act can be strengthened in the next session of 
Congress, and events before that time may even lead to its repeal. They would 
have to go a good deal further, though, before there is much likelihood that 
Britain and the United States could get together on sanctions, and the recent 
despatches from London indicate tliat the British Government is fiatly opposed 
to any such proposal. The administration, I should think, would have to go to 
Congress to get authority for any effective progi-am, even applying impartial 
neutrality restrictions effective enough to support sanctions undertaken by an- 
other country. Senator Pittman argues that the President can do anything in 
the way of economic intervention under the recent Supreme Court decision ; but 
it sounds a little fantastic to say that the general discretionary power of the 
President in matters of foreign policy give liim a blank check with reference to 
trade and finance in time of peace as well as war. It is conceivable that the 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4129 

President could lead opinion along to the point where he could make a successful 
appeal to Congress, and it is just this possibility which has made the isolationist 
senators so insistent on tying his hands so far as possible. The story goes that 
they were infuriated and alarmed a year and a half ago when the President, in 
discussing the matter of discretionary neutrality powers with a small gi'oup, 
leaned across the table, banged his fist, and said with great emphasis, "Gentle- 
men, I can get this country in a war in 10 days." 

While in Washington I picked up a few bits of gossip, which may interest you. 
It was indirectly reported to me that the Military Intelligence Division believes 
Japan to have 2.000,000 men under arms — a half million in China, a half million 
in Manchuria. Korea, and at ports of embarkation in Japan ; and the remainder in 
preparation. The Germany military advisers are people in good standing at 
home, who simply have orders not to be captured or found dead on a battlefield. 
It is reported that there are two American majors, retired or reserve, directing 
China's air operations, and, less reliably, that two hundred American pilots have 
landed in Hongkong. Referring again to the Germans, a Chinese told me here 
that Germans were under orders from home to remain as long as China did not 
receive direct military aid from the Soviet Union. 

I greatly appreciated your extensive and .iicnerous comments on the pamphlet 
manuscript. I was myself dissatisfied with the manuscript in a number of the 
points which you raised, and I think the present revision is some improvement. It 
still has to be done over again and as yet I haven't sat down to that liusiness 
with your letter in front of me. Aime Johnstone thinks there will be considerable 
demand for something of this sort and quoted Fred Libby as saying that a 100 
pamphlet has ten times the sale of a 25^ one. With the situation moving as it is, 
it is clear that the discussion should be broadened with the neutrality section 
greatly curtailed. I am glad now we did not rush through a pamphlet focusing 
on neutrality two weeks ago. 

I am very reluctant to agree with you that we must submit this kind of thing 
to Hornbeck, and Lasker feels the same way. If we sent it to a high govern- 
ment official we would be more or less foi-ced to adopt wh;itever suggestions he 
cares to make. My own feeling is that while in this case it might make no great 
difference, it is a bad precedent and just the kind of thing which we criticise 
in other countries. I will follow out your request unless I hear from you. to the 
contrary. 

We have had a number of requests for the American Stake pamphlet which 
we are unable to fulfill. Anne Johnstone thinks that a new edition, prepared in 
the near future and revised in such a way as to summarize not only the economic 
stake but also existing political commitments and diplomatic machinery, etc., 
would be useful. I wish we had someone around who could do a really first-class 
graphic portrayal of this subject. 
Sincerely yours, 

[t] Wm. W. Lockwood, Jr. 



Exhibit No. 687 

The Institute of Pacific Relations 

Honolulu, Hawaii 

129 East 52nd Street, 
New York, N. Y., July 16, 1934. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

New Hartford, Connecticut. 
Dear Fred: You doubtless received from Rajchman a copy of his Report as 
Technical Delegate of the League in China. That Report, you will remember, was 
based on ten Annexes published by the National Economic Council in China. If 
you do not have a copy of these Annexes, and desire to do so, I can send you a 
volume containing all ten. 
Sincerely, 

fs] Edward C. Carter 
[t] Edward C. Carter. 

(Pencilled note:) No; I have never seen the repoi't — and even less I have not 
even heard about it. I should greatly appreciate a copy. 

[s] Feed. 
ECC/NSH 



4130 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 688 

Excerpts From Letter to Frederick V. Field From Newton D. Baker, Dated 

August G, 1934 (Cleveland, Ohio) 

I have just had a two-day visit from Joe Barnes. It was really a very 
delightful experience for me and I was flattered out of all description by the 
candor and completeness with which Joe permitted me to see the inside of bis 
mind, and, as I gathered, to some extent, the inside of your mind. I tried to 
tell liim that although I am an old man, I am still in full possession of all the 
ideals of my youth, which do not differ from those which you and be cherish, 
and that the only difference between bim and me lies in the fact that I have 
ceased to expect tbe same rate of progress which he thinks not only possible 
but necessary. 

All of this is important so far as this note is concerned only because I want 
to urge you to consider the secretaryship of the American Council. Mr. Carter 
has telegraphed me that Mr. Alsberg has definitely decided that be will not 
undertake it. I was perfectly content to have bim invited, but my first sug- 
gestion when Mr. Carter talked with me about it was that you should do tbe 
job. I hope you will consider it favorably, and, as you see, I have not learned 
from Joe all the things which you might think it important for me to know and 
I still am very enthusiastic in urging the invitation on your attention. 



Exhibit No. 689 

Office op the Secretary-General 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

Amsterdam — Honolulu — London — Manila — Moscow — Paris — Shanghai — Sydney — Tokyo — 

Toronto — Wellington 

Enroute, 
Seattle-Victoria, April 29, 1939. 

Dear Fred : Yours of April 25 has only just arrived. It deserves a better 
answer than is possible at this last minute. 

Apparently you want my reaction to a specific situation rather than the 
general assurance that for years I have advocated the development of tbe 
American Labor Movement. I wish you had raised these questions when I was 
in New York for then I could have understood the nature of tbe difficulties you 
and your colleagues are facing. 

I was quite surprised for example to learn from I.,ockwood the evening I left 
New York that he anticipated difficulty with tbe Board. 

Now your letter comes with tbe implication of wide difference of opinion 
within the staff. 

To express an opinion on objections from the Board or the staff' I ought to 
know tbe nature of these objections. 

Lockwood's remark was the first bint I bad bad that you had not been carrying 
a majority of your colleagues on the Executive Committee with you concurrently 
with the efforts of. your immediate colleagues on the staff' to get a majority 
of the staff to join the Union. In a cooperative enterprize like the I. P. R. where 
tbe Executive Committee and the Board are not "profit makers" but volunteer 
cooperators, I should have thought this indispensable. 

What are the objections of staff members? If I learned, for example, that so 
conscientious a member as Shiman did not want to join the Union I would want 
to know his reasons before casting a vote in tbe Executive Committee, which be 
might regard as coercion. I do not mean that I would be unwilling to go against 
"x" or "y" on tbe American Council staff. I would first want to know what the 
staff objections are. 

I should hope that if unionization in the American Council is effected tbe 
parallel of the F. P. A. would not be featured because (a) Buell opposed tbe 
union whereas you favor it (b) the F. P. A. bad a bad labor policy whereas you 
have had a good one. Are there not better parallels, i. e., where unionization 
represents tbe mature, intelligent coopei'ation of socially minded adults not tbe 
"employer" "employee" squabble in the F. P. A. 

If for any reason unionization is delayed I should think that as an interim 
measure tlie Executive Committee and the staff ought to work out without delay 
a formulation of the present safeguards and standards including the creation 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4131 

of a joint committee which will relieve you of your present responsibility for 
fixing salaries, etc. 

If you yourself finally decide to urge the Executive Committee to authorize 
you to sign a contract you may wish also to recommend that the Committee con- 
sider whether the financial position of the Council is not siich that it can increase 
slightly its salaries to one or two lowest bracket staff members, // the only obstacle 
to their joining the union is the size of the dues. 

An immediate general formulation is clearly indicated for otherwise if you 
were run over by a bus and succeeded by a less socially minded person there 
might be a worsening in the standards you have established. 

If you think it will help please do not hesitate to share this letter with Jessup. 
If you do please tell him in his Pacific Council capacity that I understand there 
is no parallel proposal among the members of the International Secretariat to 
ask the P. C. for a contract. I assume this must invoke joint and concurrent 
examination of the question from the start by the P. C. and the members of the 
Secretariat as the situation in the P. C. and the A. C. appear to be somewhat 
different. 

Sincerely but hastily yours, 

Edward C. Caeteb. 

I have discussed the union with no one on your staff save Lockwood on Monday 
and Austern briefly about a month ago. 



Exhibit No. 690 

212 East 48th St., 
New York City, March 20, 19S9. 
Dr. Fkedeeick V. Field, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East 52d St.. New York City. 

Dear Mr. Fiexd : I am sure that you will be interested in meeting Lieut. Arthur 
Read who has just arrived in this country from China and has a very interesting 
story to tell. 

Mr. Read, who is an Army Reserve Lieutenant, has been instructing Chinese 
soldiers at Kwangtung and in Hankow for more than a year and will be in the 
United States for the next few months on a lecture tour. 

I have asked him to look you up when he returns from Washington the latter 
part of this week. 

Letters of introduction from China express a glowing appreciation for the 
splendid work he has done for the Chinese forces. 
Very sincerely yours, 

[s] Earl H. Leaf. 
EHL : vr 



The attached report, compiled and written by the Shanghai branch of the 
British Army Intelligence Service, is Strictly co^'FIDENTIAL. 

It is well worth a careful study, however, as providing a means of estimating 
the actual number of casualties when studying the official Japanese casualty 
reports. 

Earl H. Leaf. 

Japanese Casualties 

1. Although it is difficult to do more than a rough approximation, the follow- 
ing attempt has been made to assess the Japanese casualties incurred from the 
outbreak of the Lukouchiao incident on July 7th, 1937, to about the middle 
of November 1938, a period of over 16 months of hostilities. 

2. The official Japanese Army figures of killed in action are as under : 

(a) Up to about mid-Nov. 19.37 — North China: Approxi. 6,500; Central 
China : Approxi. 10.000. 

(b) Up to 7th July 1938— nearly 37,000 on all fronts. Between mid- 
November 1937 and July 1938, most of the heavy fighting had occurred in 
the North China Front, in Shantung, especially Taierchwang, in Shansi, 
and North Honan. It is suggested that this figure of 37,000 might be 
subdivided into 19,000 North China : 18,000 Central China. 



4132 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

(c) During Hankow advance from about the middle of August to the 
middle of October : G.inS. 
This would give, with an admitted South China casualty list of 77, a grand total 
of 4;^>.()(M» killed. It would appear reasonable to add another 2,000 to represent 
"official" casualties in North China subsequent to 7th July 1938, and "official" 
casualties in Central China otlier than those incurred during the Hankow 
advance as stated above. 

It is suggested, therefore, that the official figures to date would be in the 
neighborhood of 4r),000 killed, of wliich not h^ss than 25,000 will have been in- 
curred in Central Cliina. 

3. (a) These figures suffer from two defects. In the first place they are 
"official" lists, and in the second place they do not, it is luiderstood, include 
those died of disease. They may be considered to be a serious understatement 
of the true state of alTairs. 

(b) As regards the accurac.v of the "ofticial" lists, it is a fact that the "official" 
casualties at the "Changkufeng Incident in July- August 1938, were given at 158 
killed. Later lists of killed. l)y name, gave a total of '>'2'^ (see Sununary No. 42). 
A greater proportion of casualties were probably suppressed on this occasion 
than is usually the case (the true casualties being over 200% more than the 
official ones), as there were particular reasons to emphasize how gallantly and 
successfully the Japanese had resisted the Russians. 

It is also of interest to record that continuous reports have been received of 
the number of ashes evacuated through Tangku and that these reports give a 
total, up to the end of October, of over 60,000. These ashes will certainly include 
died of disease and probably also civilians, but even allowing for a 50% exag- 
geration, the subsequent total of 40,000 is twice the "official" total of 20,000. 
Figures for Shanghai and Tsingtao are not obtainable, but the impression gained 
from the reports of ashes arriving in Japan fortifies the belief that the dead 
are very considerably greater than is officially announced. 

It is suggested that the numbers killed in action are about 60% above those 
officially admitted, and that they are probably over 70,000. 

(c) Figures of "dead from disease" are more difficult to estimate, but the fol- 
lowing information is of assistance : 

(i) The Japanese admitted to 300 deaths from cholera near Shanghai in 
August and September, 1937, and to outbreaks of cholera up the Yangtze 
this summer, especially at Kiukiang. Their admission of cholera deaths 
near Shanghai is probably an understatement. 

(ii) The South Manchurian Railway, who have been operating certain 
railways in North China for some months, have announced the deaths of 28 
Japanese employees from disease. The number of Japanese S. M. R. em- 
ployees in North China is not known, it is suggested an average over the 
period under discussion may be about 2,000. These figures, taken by them- 
selves, nmst not be pressed too far, as many of the 28 deaths might have 
occurred in one isolated outl)reak of disease in one isolated area, and the 
total of 2,000 Japanese S. M. R. employees may be an understatement. On 
the other hand, it might be remembered that these civil employees will 
usually be working under conditions nuiking them both less liable to serious 
disease, and, with better treatment more quickly available, more likely to 
recover, if attacked. 

(iii) Other factors to be borne in mind are Ihe reported 60,0(X) ashes from 
Tangku, which will have included deaths from disease, the admitted prev- 
alence of dysentery l)oth in North and Ontral China, the bitter cold faced 
in the winter of 1937-38, whic-h undoubtedly caused frostbite, pneumonia, 
and other serious winter ailments, and the almost tropical conditions of the 
summer fighting in the Yangtze this summer. 

(d) It is suggested that the deaths from disease in the Japanese Army in 
China may be taken as something under 10,000, and that the total number of 
deaths from all causes is some 80,000 men. 

4. (a) The numbers of "seriously" wounded and sick must also, to a con- 
siderable extent, be a matter of conjecture, and it is difficult to draw an exact 
line between "serious" and "slight" cases. It is intended that "serious" cases 
should cover not only men pernuinently incapacitated for military service but 
also, generally speaking, all those whose absence from duty is about 3 months 
or more and who, therefore, have a serious effect on the fighting strength of 
the Army. 

(b) It is understood that as a result of the experience of the Great Wai a 
proportion of 4 wounded to 1 killed may be expected in action. Of these 4 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4133 

wounded 1 will be able to walk iu a Walkiug Wounded C-ollecting Centre and the 
other 8 will have to be helped or carried by stretcher. The 1 walking wounded 
can probably be taken as a "slightly wounded," and a small percentage of the 3 
nonwalking wounded may also be only "slightly" wounded, the nature of the 
wound preventing walking. 

It is possible that in the present war in China, with most Japanese casualties 
being caused by comparative cleaner and less serious bullet wounds, that the 
proportion of "slightly" wounded is higher than it was in France, and it is 
suggested, therefore, that the number of "seriously" wounded will l)e about 
140,000. 

(e) The number of "seriously" sick will, of course, bear a higher proportion 
to died of disease than wounded to killed. 

Cholera, dysentery, beri-beri, pneumonia, frostbite, all causing a high degree 
of "serious" wastage, have been prevalent at different times among the Japa- 
nese forces. The immediate "serious" wastage from venereal disease have 
lirobably not been high, though the ultimate loss is bound to be serious in view 
of its widespread existence in the Japanese army and the little or no preventive 
measures taken. Malaria has obviously caused a very high immediate wastage, 
but it is possible that its "serious" wastage (i. e., over 3 months absence from 
duty) is less than dysentery, which has probably been the chief scourge to the 
Japanese troopis. There have also probably been a not-inconsiderable number 
of "heat" diseases from the summer campaigning in the Yangtze Valley. 

It is suggested that tlie number of "seriously" sick will be about 60,000. 

(d) These two figures give a combined total of 200,000 "serious" casualties, 
wounded and sick. 

Owing to tbe Japanese using, quite legitimately, hospital transports as well 
as hospital ships for the evacuation of wounded and sick, it has not been possible 
to obtain data of movements of hospital vessels from China, as the hospital 
transports are not recognizable as such. Two facts, however, have recently 
become known from the journey of certain foreign newspapermen up the 
Yangtze in October, tending to confirm tlie above estimate. 

The first fact is connected with a visit paid to the Japanese Army Yangtzpoo 
Clearing Hospital, Shanghai. This is not the only Japanese Army hospital in 
Shanghai, but it is believed to be now the ])rincipal one in existence. During 
the Shanghai fighting there were, of course, several others. Sick and wounded 
from Shanghai area and from Hangchow are evacuated to these Shanghai hos- 
pitals. Sick and wounded from upriver are evacuated to hospitals at Nanking 
and KiUKiANG, etc., and thence moved direct to Japan. It will thus be seen that 
this Yangtzepoo Hospital, though an important one, only deals with a propor- 
tion of the Army casualties in ('entral China. On the occasion in question when 
the foreign journalists were being conducted round, the O. C. Hospital admitted 
that since the opening of the hospital in SeiTtember 1937, 60,000 patients had 
been dealt witb. of whom 40,000 had been evacuated to Japan. 

The second fact is connected with the visit of the foreign journalists to. 
Kiukiang a few days later. There, the KiirKiANG Army Hospital was full, with 
a total of between 2,000 and 3,000 patients. It was estimated that about 60% 
were "sick" and 40% "wounded." The chief sicknesses were dysentery, malaria, 
and beri-beri. 

The final suggested figures of Japanese Army casualties in China are therefore 
280,000 wounded or sick. These figures are considered reasonable, though it is 
possible that the proportions between one class of casualty and another may need 
alteration. 

The Japanese Navy admitted to 1,000 killed on July 7th, 1938. On a compara- 
ble basis, with loss of Naval aircraft and with Naval landing parties operating 
up the Yangtze, the Naval casualties may be assessed at 2,000 dead and 5,000 
seriously wounded or sick. It is suggested that, to cover possible overassess- 
ment, the Naval casualties are con.sidered as included in the Army losses 
suggested above. 

In Summary No. 44, page 8, it was estimated that the "official" Japanese Army 
total of killed in China between July 7th, 1937, to about the middle of November 
1938 would be "in the neighborhood of 45,000." The official figures publkshed on 
December 26th, 1938, for the period 7th July, 1937, to 30th November, 1938, are 
given as 47,133 officers and men "killed in action or succuml)ed to wounds." 

It is considered that this higher figure tends to confirm the totals suggested 
in the article in question of 80,000 Array and Navy killed, died of wounds, died 
of disease, and 200,000 seriously wounded or sick. There have also been various 



4134 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

small additional incidents confirming ttie belief that the "official" casualties have 
been greatly understated. Such incidents are : 

(a) An account in the "Osaka Mainichi" of the wastage from disease among 
the reporters of that newspaper with the forward troops. It was stated that 
"more than (JO" reporters had to be withdrawn "to the rear" on account of ill 
health. It is also of interest that Lt. General Tokuga-sva, C. O. C, Air Force in 
China, was evacuated to Japan in December 193S, suffering from typhoid. 

(b) A photograph in the Japan Advertises of 94 ex-members of the Metro- 
politan Police Board, Tokio, killed or died of disease in China. 

(c) The arrival of a very large number of ashes in Japan at the end of 
December. On one occasion 1,821 ashes were received at Tokio and about a 
similar total at Kobe or Osaka. 

In this connection, reports from Tientsin state that during the two months 
November and December, 1938, 4,350 ashes were embarked at Tangku, making the 
estimated grand total of ashes despatched from that port about 65,000. 

(d) The large number of people met in Japan who had lost relatives in China. 



Exhibit No. 691 



Officers : Carl I. Alsberg, Chairman ; Wallace M. Alexander, Vice Chairman ; Miss Ada L. 
Comstock, Vice Chairman ; Philip C. Jessup, Vice Chairman ; Benjamin H. Kizer, Vice 
Chairman : Ray Lyman Wilbur, Vice Chairman : Frederick V. Field, Secretary ; Charles 
J. Rhoads, Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austern, Assistant Treasurer 

american council 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

1795 California Street, San Francisco ; Telephone TUxedo 3114 — 129 East 52nd Street, 

New York City : Telephone : PLaza 3-4700 

August 12, 1938. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

1795 California Street, San Francisco, Calif. 

Dear Fred : Situation on the Soviet-Japanese front seems well in hand and 
my bet is that hostilities will not again break out, unless the ominous European 
situation erupts. There were a bad few days, however, when I was holding my 
breath. It was very difficult to arive at any clear-cut explanation, and I spent 
considerable energy collecting opinions. 

In view of the armistice which would signify a Japanese desii'e to avoid 
real trouble to the north, the most logical explanation as I see it is something 
along the following lines. The incident was Japanese provoked, prompted by 
some request or at least understanding with Germany. The latter has been so 
insistent in expressions regarding its lack of desire for this incident and its 
unwillingness to give Japan more than "sympathy" that this alone would arouse 
suspicion. Also in the present jockeying re Czechoslovakia, it might well be to 
the interest of Germany to have some illustration given to France that the 
Soviets can only look with one eye toward Europe. Without some prompting 
from Germany, or at least, assurance that if the worst eventually should come 
from the incident, Germany would also engage the U. S. S. R.'s attention, it is 
inconceivable that Japan should have started something of so grave a magnitude 
or at least should have let it develop as it did. For home consumption, Japan 
might also well have been motivated by a desire to give some concrete illustra- 
tion of why it is not progressing faster in China and why it has to adopt such 
extreme economic measures. It can now be pointed out that a great part of 
.lapanese manpower and resources have to be kept earmarked for Manchukuo 
and therefore the country can in no way be considered as exercising its full 
strength in cleaning up the "China incident." Again, for Japan's attempts to 
prevent increased stiffening of attitude by England and the United States against 
Japan, the Soviet border trouble may also prove of value. It is a reminder that 
if Japan is allowed to get too weak, it may prove unable to cope with the 
Soviet "menace." It has always been my belief that the leading circles in these 
countries have always hoped that Japan and the Soviet Union may counteract 
each other. Japan may well try to point out that unless she is given assistance, 
a different complexion will evolve in the East — see Peffer's article in last Sun- 
day's Times. It is possible that the trouble began by autonomous action on the 
part of the Kwantung army, but the composition of the Cabinet would indi- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4135 

cate that there is not much separation between the Army and the forces in con- 
trol. I would say that the Cabinet eitlier planned it from the beginning or im- 
mediately utilized a few pot shots. 

Regarding Thompson's exiilanation, whicli bases Japanese action on knowledge 
of present Soviet weakness, I liave of course no immediate or personal knowledge 
regarding the condition of the Red Army. However, I would refer to a recent 
article in the Saturday Evening Post by Demeree Bess on the undeclared war 
between Japan and the Soviet Union, in which particular reference is made to 
the fact that the Far Eastern army was untouched by the purge. Also Russell of 
the Teleciram in a recent series of articles has drawn a pretty glowing picture of 
the Soviet forces, apparently from personal observation in his recent trip over 
the Trans-Sib. He mentions particularly the unstrained, confident bearing and 
manner of the officers and men whom he observed. I would also think that the 
events of the fighting and the armistice as well as the tone of Litvinov's con- 
versations with Shigemitshu indicate Soviet strength rather than weakness. 
My own belief is that the Soviet Union has never felt itself as strong as it does at 
present. 

I hope all this makes some sense. Regarding Europe, everyone seems to be 
keeping their fingers crossed, particularly during this month. 
Yours faithfully, 

[s] Kate 

[t] Kathleen Baknes. 



Frederick V. Field 

It was voted unanimously to record the American Council's appreciation of 
the work of Frederick V. Field as follows : 

It was with the deepest regret that the Board of Trustees learned that the 
Executive Committee had found it necessary to accept the resignation at its 
meeting of September 18 of Mr. Frederick "V. Field from the Secretaryship of the 
American Council. As the minutes of that meeting showed, the Chairman of the 
Committee, Mr. Parker, had asked the Chairman of the American Council 
whether he felt that IMr. Field could not be persuaded to resume the Secretary- 
ship. Dr. Jessup had replied that he thought Mr. Field's decision was final. 

Mr. Field joined the staff of the American Council in 1929. During his 11 
years of service he has demonstrated an unusually high quality of leadership. 
The program of the American Council has expanded notably under his direction, 
partly because of his own untiring efforts, and partly because of his imaginative 
leadership in developing the cooperation of the entire staff. Mr. Field was one 
of the Founders of the Far Easteirn Survey. He was the author of "American 
Participation in the China Consortiums", published by the University of Chi- 
cago Press, and presented as a research study at the Hangchow-Shanghai Con- 
ference of the Institute of 1931. In 1932 and 1933 he acted as Editor-in-chief 
of the "Economic Handbook of the Pacific Area," which was published by 
Doubleday-Doran and Company in 1934 with a foreword by the late Mr. Newton 
D. Baker. In this monumental work his own research abilities, together with his 
rare capacity for stimulating research on the part of his colleagues, were 
strikingly exhibited. It was largely through his initiative that the series of 
regional conferences on American foreign policy were developed in various 
parts of the United States in 1938, 1939, and 1940. 

While he was executive secretary the membership of the American Council 
more than doubled, but it is impossible to make a full record of his services to 
the American Council, because in innumerable unknown and anonymous ways 
he has contributed to the mairtteuance and expansion of the IPR program. 
His capacity to surround himself with young and able scholars has served as a 
compelling example in other National Councils. His services likewise to the 
International Secretariat and the Pacific Council have been a major contri- 
bution to the development of the Institute's international work. 

Throughout his connection with the Institute he has been most scrupulous and 
exacting in maintaining the highest objective standards for his own IPR writ- 
ing and that of his colleagues. He has combined personal modesty with the 
capacity to inspire high achievement on the part of others. He has been noted 
for his practical wisdom in counsel and amazing energy in action. 

The Board of Trustees desire that the officers assure Mr. Field that his job 
on the American Council staff will be awaiting him when he completes his 
present work. 



4136 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 692 

300 GiLMAN Hall, 
The Johns Hopkins University, 

Baltimore, Md., October 11, 1938. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 
1795 California Street, 

Sa7i Francisco. 
Dear Fred : Enclosed I am sending a copy of a recent letter from Snow : also a 
copy of a recent letter I wrote to Harold Isaacs, who suddenly wrote to apprise 
me that his history of the Chinese revolution is about to be published by Seeker 
and AVarburg in London. He particularly requested me not to have it reviewed 
by any of the "next of Stalinists" in our New York office ! 

If you are interested I should like very much to send you occasional samples 
of correspondence like these. I hope it might help to keep us in touch both per- 
sonally and perhaps for the occasional benefit of Pacific Affairs and Amerasia. 
We got the first part of our settling down managed very handily, but have now 
entered the tag-end phase, which may take an indefinite time. 
How is Edith? We both send our love. 
Tours, 

[t] Owen Lattimore. 



Exhibit No. 693 



Chairman : Clifford T. McAvoy. Secretary-Treasurer : A. J. Isserman. Executive Com- 
mittee : Mrs. Edmond Barach, Franz Boas, John Bright, Louis Colman, Joseph Curran, 
David Efron, Frederick V. Field, Michael Garramone, Hugo Gellert, Ben Golden, Marina 
Lopez, George Mar.shall, Herman P. Osborne, Samuel Putnam. Charles Recht. Arthur G. 
Silverman, Ferdinand Smith, Tredwell Smith, Max Yergan. Staff — Executive Secretary : 
Marion Bachrach ; Frederick V. Field; Romolo Lachatanere ; Joan Madison 

Council for Pan American Democracy 
112 East 19th Street 

NEW YORK, N. Y. 

GRamercy 3-2709 

March 4, 1943. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East 52nd Street, New York, N. Y. 
Dear Mr. Carter : I have been very much surprised to learn of the extraordi- 
narily hostile attitude which Manchester Boddy of the Los Angeles Daily News 
has been taking toward the Soviet Union. The progressive newspapers on the 
west coast carry a blast against him about every week, a sample of which I 
enclose. 

Their position seems to me to be well documented. Do you still know him, and 
have a good contact with him? If so, wouldn't it be worth trying to influence 
his point of view which, if it remains where it now is, will simply continue to 
poison the mass of his readers. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Fred 

Frederick V. Field. 
FVF : AP 

["Peoples World," 2/26/43] 
Editor Boddy, This Is Forgery ! 

In his column of Wednesday, February 24, Manchester Boddy, editor-publisher 
of the Los Angeles Daily News, prints a statement purportedly made by Soviet 
Premier Joseph Stalin in 1939. 

We charge that it is a forgery worthy of the pen of a Goebbels or a Valtin- 
Krivitsky stooge. 

Here it is : 

"* * * If we accept the Reich's offer of collaboration, the latter wiU not 
hesitate to crush Poland ; England and France will thereupon be drawn fatally 
into war. There will result a thorough destruction of Western Europe, and 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4137 

remaining outside the conflict we can advantageously await our hour. If Ger- 
many wins, she will emerge from the war too exhausted to dream of an armed 
conflict against us. We must accept the pact proposed by Germany and work 
to prolong the war the maximum possible. * * *" 

A telephone call to Mr. Boddy's secretary from a People's World reporter failed 
to elicit the source from which Mr. Boddy quoted Stalin. 

Mr. Boddy's secretary replied that the statement was contained on a typed 
index card in the publisher's files. 

For a person holding as responsible a position in influencing public opinion as 
Mr. Boddy to give credence to as obvious forgery as the one typed on his index 
card, which after all might have been filed under "Nazi propaganda," seems 
incredible. 

The only purpose which the printing of such a forgery could accomplish is to 
drive a wedge between the United States and its allies in this war of survival, a 
tactic which President Roosevelt warned against in his recent speech as being 
inspired by Berlin. 

Mr. Boddy should be made to answer publicly for his irresponsibility. 

For the present, we challenge him to present proof that will authenticate the 
scurrilous slander printed above as having come from Stalin. 

Failing such proof (as fail to produce it Boddy must), we challenge liim to 
meet the responsibilities imposed upon him as a public figure by publicly retract- 
ing this attack upon our great Russian ally. 



Exhibit Xo. 694 

New York City, July 3, 1940. 
^liss Joy Hume. 

Dear Joy : Thanks for your note written just as you left for Wisconsin. If 
the FBI has not put you and the other representatives of American youth in jail 
I hope that you will take the initiative in getting in touch with me when you 
return to the Pacific Council office. I am anxious to have a talk with you but as 
I shall be spending most of my time out of the office I shall probably miss you 
unless you take pains to see that I don't. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



Exhibit No. 695 

Chinese Youth Delegation 
Parkins 

San Francisco, August 27, 1938. 
Miss Helen Parkins, 

The Chinese Youth Delegation, 

12 West 32nd Street, Neic York City. 

Dear Miss Parkins : I have your letter of August 22nd asking me to join the 
sponsoring committee for the good-will tour of the Chinese Youth Delegation. I 
am entirely sympathetic with the purpose of this tour and shall be glad to do 
anything I can privately to aid it but I shall have to decline your invitation to 
join the committee and have my name appear on the letter paper. The staff of 
our organization, which is essentially a research one. at the outbreak of the 
war a year ago agreed to join no committees on behalf of one belligerent or 
another although we reserved the right to express our private opinions in writing 
and speaking as freely as we wished. As you perhaps know, I have taken ad- 
vantage of this opportunity in writing a good many articles on behalf of China 
but I have felt that it was wiser all around to decline such an invitation as you 
have given me. 

Please, however, be assured that I shall be eager to do anything I can to 
help the tour, particularly when it comes to the West Coast. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 

f/g 



4138 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

LAckawanna 4-5761 
Committee for the Tour of the Chinese Youth Delegation 
12 West 32nd Street 

new YORK CITY 

317 

August 22, 1938. 
Mr. Frederick C. Field, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

San Francisco, California. 

Dear Mr. Field: A group of Chinese young people, delegates to the World 
Youth Congress, are now in the United States. These young men and women, 
representing various religious and youth organizations in China, plan to spend 
three months in the United States, after the World Youth Congress is over, 
touring through our principal cities, visiting our educational institutions and 
civic centers. The reception whicli will be accorded them will be an expression 
of the international fellowship between youtli of America and China. Their 
tour will truly be one of good will. 

Wherever the delegation stops, local community leaders are planning a wel- 
come, climaxed in most instances by a mass meeting. The Chinese delegates will 
tell their own stories, their experiences in the New Life Movement in China, and 
what they have gone through in this past year of war. It is our hope that the 
listeners, moved by these accounts, will aid the cause of civilian relief in China. 

The tour is being sponsored by a ninnber of organizations, including the 
American Y'outh Congress, the United Council for Civilian Relief, the Young 
Men's Christian Association, the American Association of University Women, 
the Young Women's Christian Association, the Chinese Benevolent Association, 
the China Aid Council of the American League for Peace and Democracy, and 
other groups engaged in China Aid work. 

The planning committee is now engaged in securing a sponsoring committee 
for the Good Will Tour, of those men and women prominent in public affairs who 
will indicate how strongly America supports the cause of all wounded and 
suffering peoples. Among those who have already accepted are Mrs. Samuel 
McCrea Cavert, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., and others. 

We should like very much to have you join them as a member of the Sponsoring 
Committee. In that capacity your name will appear on our permanent sta- 
tionery, and we hope you will be able to greet the delegation when it reaches your 
city. We are sure you realize the importance of your cooperation in this matter, 
and look forward to receiving your acceptance. 
Very sincerely yours, 

[s] Helen Parkins 

Helen Parkins, Chairman. 

hp ; rk 

uopwa ; 16 



Lackawanna 4 — 5761 

Committee for the Tour of the Chinese Youth Delegation 

12 West 32nd Street, New York City, 317 

August 25, 1938. 
Mr. Frederick Field, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

1195 California Street, San Francisco, California. 

Dear Mr. Field : It has been suggested to me that you might be able to help us 
in the i>ersonnel problem that we have. 

The Amei'ican Youth Congress and other cooperating organizations are to tour 
four of the Chinese delegates to the World Youth Congress over the United States 
this fall. There will be two tours with two Chinese each. We are at pre.sent 
looking for two people to accompany the Chinese on these tours to act in the 
capacity of advisors and business managers. They would also be expected to 
speak on the ijlatform with the Chinese perhaps concerning their own experiences 
in China, and they would probably be expected to make collection speeches in 
many places. 



ESrSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4139 

I think you will understand that we need two people of very high caliber for 
these two jobs and I wonder if you would be able to suggest to us some Americans 
who have recently returned from China and who might be available. 

Since our time is growing short, I would appreciate hearing from you as soon 
as possible. 

Very sincerely yours, 

[s] Marie Reed, Director. 
mr ; rk 
uopwa ; 16 



Chinese Youth Delegation 
Reed 
San Francisco, Septemher 1, 1938. 
Miss Marie Reed, 

The Chinese Youth Delegation, 

12 West 32nd Street, Neic York City. 

Dear Miss Reed : It is very hard for me to suggest Americans who might tour 
the United States with the Chinese Youth Delegation for those persons are 
much more likely to be found in the East than here. I should think that it would 
be quite possible to find recent American graduates who had attended the Youth 
Congress at Vassar who would be interested in furthering the aims of the Chinese 
tour and who would have sufficient funds to stake themselves to the trip. I know 
one such person whom we have already signed up for work with our own organ- 
ization. This is very much the kind of thing I did the first year I was out of 
college and I should think that there would be a good many people in the same 
position and with the same interests available for this service now. The thing 
to do would be to get in touch with persons connected with several Eastern 
universities and colleges sympathetic with what you are trying to do. I feel 
quite sure that they would have a number of nominations to make. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 

f/g 



Exhibit No. 696 

San Francisco, April 12, 1938. 
Mrs. Kitty Gellhorn, 

440 Riverside Drive, Neio YorTc, Neiv York. 

Dear Kitty: I bother you with this request only because I want to be certain 
that I get an adequate reply and it is just possible that I would not get one by 
writing impersonally to the League of Women Shoppers' headquarters. 

The American Friends of the Chinese People have in the last six months 
organized a fairly active branch in San Francisco and from time to time they 
have asked me to help. At the moment they want to undertake a very aggressive 
campaign on behalf of a Japanese boycott, and I have urged them to put forward 
literature giving advice to San Francisco shoppers. They don't seem to be aware 
of the excellent pamphlet which I have seen and which I believe originated with 
the League of Woman Shoppers. The first question is, therefore, could you have 
two or three copies of this pamphlet, if I am correct in its sponsorship, for- 
warded to me? 

I would also be very grateful if you would let me know what you, as an 
average New York shopper not specializing in Far Eastern questions but inter- 
ested in social and political problems in general, have run into with regard to 
this .Japanese boycott question. What influence, whether in the form of a piece 
of literature, an organizatiX)nal effort, or a lecture, has particularly guided your 
own decisions? I ask this because, if I' am not mistaken, the last time I looked 
at your legs they were clad in lisle, so I assume someone has influenced you. 
I would be very grateful for any information you could send me and also for 
a fairly early reply. 
Sincerely yours, 

Frederick V. Field. 



4140 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 697 

Rev. John B. Thompson, Chairman ; Frederick V. Field, Executive Secretary ; 
Marion Brigg.s, Administrative Secretary 

Amekican Peace Mobilization 
1116 Vermont Avenue NW 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

National 1274 

December 5, 1940. 
Mr. Edward C. Carter, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 129 East 52nd Street, 

Neio York, City. 

Dear Mr. Carter : I had at first intended to reply to your mimeographed, cir- 
cular letter of November 20th before the Trustees meeting. On rereading it a 
couple of times, however, I was unable to put my teeth into precisely what sort 
of reply you were after. I thought the letter presented an interesting political 
survey of the Pacific area situation, though one yiith which I disagreed at a 
number of points, without making it clear how you wished all this to be con- 
sidered vis-a-vis the IPR program. Except, of course, to give more of a go-ahead 
signal than ever. 

A good many of these questions were touched upon at the Trustees meeting. 
I thought Carroll Binder's statement, and to a less extent Luce's, were good, 
but I felt ashamed as an American that it was necessary to repeat such in- 
credibly elementary stuff at the close of the year 1940. It was necessary, never- 
theless, in the light of Wilbur's either vicious or childish (I suppose the latter) 
renmrks. I wish they could be expunged from the record ; I trust tliey will be 
disregarded. 

[(Penned:) From here on possibly .share with other members of the Staff? 
FVF.] 

The new section in the Far Eastern Survey is going to be an exceedingly difii- 
cult thing to handle because I cannot see how political subjects are going to be 
written in a way that our fancy friends will regard as "objective." If your 
November 20th letter is an example, I beg to submit that that is by no means 
impartial. It states, for instance, that "it has become plain that the two wars 
are inextricably linked." With this important assumption I totally disagree. I 
believe the wars are not linked, which does not mean that they do not affect each 
other. I believe it to be the policy of both Great Britain and the United States 
to see that they become linked, and ditto for the policy of Germany. I disapprove 
of that policy because I believe the two wars to lie wars of a completely different 
nature. The one in Europe is like the preceding world war, one of rival imperial- 
isms neither of which stands for any issues in which I'm interested. The one in 
the Far East will, if won by China, lead to positive progress, not to the return 
of an old system which breeds war (as will be the case whichever side wins in 
Europe). So that assumption about the wars being inextricably linked, while 
sounding objective enough, is in my mind, loaded. 

And the same for other points in the November 20th letter, which I shall not 
discuss because my object is not to criticise that letter but to point out the virtual 
impossibility of "objective" political writing. If the IPR takes the line that 
Great Britain and China are fighting the same kind of war, a war for democracy, 
I shall be alienated ; if it adopts my political point of view Wilbur, Binder, Luce, 
et al., will he alienated. 

So, what the answer? I think it can lie only in the kind of scheme we had 
under discussion for many months last year and earlier this year. The scheme 
of setting up (either by taking over Am^i-asia or by promoting a new venture) a 
journal of political debate and interchange and information, a jmirnal where all 
side-s and arguments would have a chance, where I'd write my personal interpre- 
tation, you yours, Wilbur his, etc. The IPR's role would then indeed be impartial 
in that it would be simply offering an agency for the exchange of political interpre- 
tation, it would be making none of its own as an organization. I'm scared of the 
Far Eastern Survey idea for the very reason that .space and the nature of the pro- 
posal will not permit of an interchange of views, and because as I have illus- 
trated earlier in this letter I d(m't think there is any such thing as impartial 
political writing. 

I must hastily correct a possible misinterpretation from a remark in an abov'e 
paragraph. The new scheme, even if I don't like it will not serve to alienate my 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4141 

interest in the IPK. That reinaik was n<> piece of blackmail ; I made it simply 
to illustrate a point. 

Now, as to 1941 program — the answer is obvious. First, continue research as 
the basis of the whole show; second, make that research as widely available as 
possible through education; third, improve facilities for Oriental studies, and 
stimulate new scholarship; fourtli, provide every possible facility and occasion 
for the discussion of political views, of policy. The latter means not only dis- 
cussion conferences, but also an Amerasia. Meanwhile make it continually and 
conspicuously evident that the IPIl is not a political but a study-research-educa- 
tion pressure ^iroup. Finally, while not losini;- sitiht of the importance of the 
American Council being part of an international show, remember, that its primary 
function is in the United States. 
With best regards, 

Fred 

Frederick V. Field. 



ExHiiuT No. 698 
Western Union 



March 11, 1938. 
Mr. Chen Han-Seng, 

I}istitute of Pacific Relations, 129 Eni^t 52n(J .street, 

-Vc/r York Ciiii, New York: 

May we use your brief account China war situation dated March eighth for 
April Amerasia. Please confer with Chi. 

(Signed) Fred. 

krcg 

Charge: Institute of Pacific Relations, 1795 California Street. 

4 :45 p. m. 

ExiiiRTT No. (j99 

.January 12, 1938. 
Memorandum to Chen Han-seng from Frederick V. Field. 

This is to remind you that you were going to write letters of introduction for 
Joris Ivens to persons in China whom you think may be useful to him in pre- 
paring the moving picture of Chinese defense. In our discussion it was sug- 
gested that you write letters which get liim to Generals I'ai and Ui and 
to the editor of the Pacific Dincsi. Any others which you tliink might be useful 
would be welcome. 

As you will recall, Joris Ivens. in association with Ernest Hemingway, made 
the picture Spanish Earth. He has just wired me that his trip has been post- 
poned a few days so he will not be coming through today, as first planned. 



Exhibit No. 7,00 



Office of the President Yexching University. 

Peiping, China, March 9, 1937. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

Institute of Pacific Relations, 

129 East 52nd Street, New York, N. Y. 
My Dear Mr. Fields : I am writing to ask your good offices in ascertaining from 
Mr. Chen Han-sheng whether or not he would care to consider an invitation from 
Yenching I'niversity to join our Department of Economics. This would take 
effect, if possible, with the coming academic year. If Mr. Chen would care to 
consider this proposal, will you kindly communicate with Dr. B. A. Garside, 
Yenching University, 150 Fifth Avenue, and ask that an interview be arranged 
with him or someone else from that office, as to further details. Dr. Garside 
could communicate with us by letter or cable, and we shall ourselves be glad to 
answer any further questions if Mr. Chen is sufficiently interested. 

Thanking you in advance for this assistance, and with greetings to Mr. Chen 
himself, believe me. 

Very sincerely yours, 

[s] J. Leighton Stuart. 

jls c 

88348— 52— pt. 12 8 



4142 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 701 

Cliaii-man : Harry F. Ward. Vice Chairmen : Mrs. Victor L. Berger, Earl Browder, Max S. 
Haj-es, Robert Morss Lovett. Jacob Mirsky. Treasurer : William. P. Mangold. National 
Bureau : Roger Baldwin. LeRoy E. Bowman, Eleanor D. Brannan, Margaret Forsyth, 
Clarence Hathaway, William P. Mangold, William B. Spofford, Harry F. Ward, James 
Waterman Wise. Secretarial Staff : Executive — Paul M. Reid ; Administration — Clara 
Bodian ; Publications — Josenh Pass ; Organization — Waldo McXutt ; Youth — James 
Lerner ; Women — Dorothy McConnell ; Trade Union — John Masse ; Religious — Rev. 
Herman F. Reisslg 

American League Against War and Fascism 

A movement to unit in common resistance to War and Fascism all organizations and 
individuals who are opposed to those allied destroyers of mankind 

112 E. 19th Street, Room 702 

NEW YORK CITY 



Telephone : Algonqsin 4-9784 

9785 



March 16, 1936. 



Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

129 E. 52nd Street, New York, N. Y. 

My Dear Mr. Field : I am very anxious to talk with you again about our 
work which you have helped us to develop. I also want to show you factually 
in the office some of the things that are being done. Is it at all possible for you 
to drop around on Wesdnesday afternoon at 4 : 30 P. M. 

I am sorry I cannot offer you more alternatives but this is the only .spare time 
I have this week. You will appreciate how much I am rushed in trying to look 
after the policy of the Tveague in addition to my other duties. 

Hoping that it may be possible to see you, I am, 
Faithfully yours, 

[s] Harry F. Ward, National Chairman. 

HFR : DM 

BS&AU 

12646 



Exhibit No. 702 



Harry F. Ward, Chairman ; Robert Morss Lovett, Vice Chairman ; Lincoln Steffens, Vice 
Chairman ; Earl Browder, Vice Chairman ; William P. Mangold, Treasurer. National 
Bureau : Roger Baldwin, LeRoy E. Bowman. Elmer Carter, Paul Crosbie. Margaret 
Forsyth, Clarence Hathaway, Donald Henderson, William. P. Mangold, Samuel C. 
Patterson, Harry F. Ward. Secretarial Staff : Executive — Paul M. Reid ; Administra- 
tion — Clnra Bodian; Affiliations — Charles C. W<bber ; Organization — Waldo McNutt ; 
Publications — Listen M. Oak : Women — Dorothy McConnell : Youth — James Lerner 

American League Against War and Fascism 

A movement to vinite in common resistance to War and Fascism all organizations and 
individuals who are opposed to these allied destroyers of mankind 

112 E. 19th Street, Room 605 

NEW YORK CITY 

Telephone : Algonquin 4-9784 

9785 

May 23, 1935. 
P'eederick; V. Field, 

129 E. 52nd St., New York City. 

Deae Fred Field : I am sure you will be glad to learn of the progress that has 
been made in the past three months. New Jersey and California (and the entire 
Pacific Coast as well) are at least getting permanent Regional Organizers. A 
grant from the Elmhirst Fund will help to maintain these men in the field. We 
have the perspective of sending a third permanent organizer into the Mid- 
Western States during the summer, and we have two men now touring the 
country. Their reports are extremely encouraging, and once we can get organ- 
izers into our six concentration points, we can expect the League to really come 
into its stride. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4143 

111 addition, a grant from the Garland Fund will enable us to put our publica- 
tions business on a realistic basis. Once this is firmly established, we will be 
in a position to further our educational program by spreading our literature 
far and wide. 

All this is in preparation for our next Congress, our Third. We are working 
toward it through the medium of regional conferences called by our local com- 
mittees, with the specitic aim of electing delegates to the Third Congress. In 
order to do this however, we must get those 6 organizers into the field. We are 
now starting a cauipaign to get sufficient funds to keep our salaries and over- 
head up during the slack summer months so as not to incur a deficit, and to main- 
tain these men in the field. You will see from this how important and how use- 
ful the renewal of your contribution would be and I trust you will find it possible 
to renew it for the month of June. 

There are two other things I hope you can do for us. A Japanese labor leader, 
Kanju Kato, about whom I wrote you before, will soon be in this country. We 
had trouble in getting his visa but finally secured it by getting the sponsorship of 
an officially respectable organization. We will have meetings lor him under 
joint committee auspices in various cities. We would like one or two under 
auspices quite apart from these. Therefore, I am quite anxious that you 
should arrange a little meeting, luncheon, or otherwise, under the auspices of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations. Can you let me know what you can do on this, 
just as soon as possible. 

Also we need your help on material for a speaker's outline concerning our 
policy in relation to Japan. Could you prepare a few notes on this and indicate 
some source of material? It would be very much appreciated. 
"Very sincerely yours, 

[s] Harry F. Ward, National Chairman. 

HFW : DP 



Exhibit No. 703 



Officers : Philip C. Jessup, Chairman ; Miss Ada L. Comstock, Vice Chairman ; Benjamin 
W. Kizer, Vice Chairman ; Philo W. Parlier, Vice Chairman ; Robert Gordon Sproul, Vice 
Chairman ; Ray Lyman Wilbur, Vice Chairman ; Fredericlt V. Field, Secretary ; Frances 
S. Harmon, Treasurer ; Miss Hilda Austern, Assistant Treasurer 

american council 

Institute of Pacific Relations, Incorporated 

209 California St., San Francisco— 129 East 52nd St., New Yorlj City 

July 1, 1940. 
Dear Fred : It was too bad that in the rush of this past week I was unable to 
talk with you. As I have been released from the staff this summer, I have 
accepted an invitation to represent Local 18, UOPWA, at the Youth Congress 
in Wisconsin, during the coming week. Beginning on July 9, I shall be work- 
ing on maps for Chi's book, up in the Pacific Council offices, for about 10 days. 
After that I shall probably return to Nature with my family during August. 
I have just been arranging with Oliver Caldwell for the disposition of some 
5,000 books from the Youth Congress, I hope to round up this project for the 
summer, and to get in touch with you further. The Publishers' and microfilm 
committees will need a shot in the arm by that time. There is little else that 
needs immediate attention on the project. 
Yours sincerely, 

[s] Joy Hume. 



4144 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 704 

The American Russian Institutp: For Cultural Relations With the Soviet 

Union, Inc. 

Fifty-Six West Forty-Fiftli Street 

new YORK 

Maech 6, 1937. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

129 East Fifty-second Street, 

New York City. 
My Dear Mr. Fiei.d : At tliis point we are badly in need of some comments on 
the tilings wliieli we have put out. Would you be good enough to let me know 
what you thought of the Yakhontofl pamphlet? 
If I can hear from you soon, I shall appreciate it. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Virginia Burdick 
[t] Virginia Burdick. 
VB : KB 



March 9, 1937. 
Miss Virginia Burdick, 

The American Russian Institute, 

New York, N. Y. 

Dear Miss Burdick : In reply to your letter of March 6th asking for my com- 
ments on the materials which you have been publishing. I have a great deal of 
praise to offer and only one possible criticism. 

To record the latter tirst, I have the feeling which may be the result of my 
not being closely familiar with your many problems, that you are overcautious. 
I believe that there are occasions when a group of importance and prestige such 
as yours must act with some boldness to present facts and authoritative inter- 
pretations on controversial issues. I have in mind, of course, occasions such as 
the very confused and uniformed state of public opinion in this country during 
and since the recent Moscow trial. One searches the regular newspapers, peri- 
odicals and pamphlet material in vain for authoritative statements of fact and 
interpretation. The country witli which you are supposed to be promoting 
friendly relations is allowed to be scandalously misrepresented all over this 
country without, as far as I have been aware, a single concerted effort on the 
part of a reputable group of American citizens to correct the false impressions 
made. I dare to suggest that you should have done something in the face of this 
situation because I think you could have participated in the controversy with 
dignity and without embarrassment. Tliere is much that the Americans could 
liave been told in a purely objective way; the judicial procedure in the Soviet 
Union, the liistory of the divergent policies of the two Russian groups, a more 
detailed and unbiased analysis of the testimony given at the trial than appeared 
in the newspapers, and perhaps even an analysis of the propaganda respecting 
the trial originating in this country. I think you could have gone further safely, 
and as an organization reassured the American public for whatever the names 
of your Board of Directors are worth, and they are worth a good deal, that the 
whole episode did not compromise the Soviet liovernment and in no way shattered 
your Institute's confidence in the work which is being done in that country. 

The prai.se is eas.v and need not take more than a few sentences. The monthly 
bulletin seems to me excellent and comes about under the same category as that 
admirable contemporary of yours, the Fak Eastern Survey. The Yakhontoff 
pamphlet was so good that I was prompted to write the author immediately 
after I read it praising him for saying so much in so few words, for the 
bibliography, and for the chronology. With regard to the Pushkin pamphlet, I 
can only say that it is the only thing I have ever read on that gentleman and 
having read it I feel quite well informed. 

I hope you will forgive me the liberty I have taken in the one criticism I have 
made. I have taken you at your word that yon wanted my comments. 
Sincerely yours, 

[t] FREDE^iiCK V. Field. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4145 

Tele. MUrray Hill 2-0313 

Board of Directors : Harry Elmer Barnes, Mrs. Kathleen Barnes, Aaron Bodansky, Harold 
Clurman, Mrs. Ethel Clyde, George S. Counts, Mrs. Vera Micheles Deans, John 
Dewey, Wm. O. Field, Jr., Lewis Gannett, Mortimer Graves, Wm. S. Graves, Alcan Hirsch, 
John A. Kingsbury, Mary van Kleeck. Win. W. Lancaster, William Lescaze, Robert 
Littell, Harriet Moore, William Allan Neilson, Mrs. Frances Flynn Paine, Mrs. George F. 
Porter, Raymond Robins, Geroid T. Robinson, John Rotlischild, Whitney Seymour, Lee 
Simonson, Graham R. Taylor, Frederick Tilney, S. A. Trone, Allen Wardwell, Richard 
Watts, Jr., Maurice Wertheim, Avrahm Yarmolinsky, Mrs. Efrem Zimbalist. Executive 
Secretary, Virginia Burdick ; Editor, Harriet Moore 

The American Russian Institute for Cultural Relations With the Soviet 

Union, Inc. 

Fifty-Six West Forty-Fifth Street 

new YORK 

March 30, 1937. 
Mr. Frederick Field, 

American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, 
129 East 52nd Street, Netv York City. 
My Dear Mr. Field : Thank you for your letter of March 9th. I have taken 
the liberty of delaying my reply in the hope that I would have something definite 
to tell you before you returned from your trip. However, even now I can tell 
you very little which is definite concerning the Institute's policy in regard to 
the recent Moscow trial. Needless to say, I was very grateful for your opinion 
in this connection. 

At the present time, the matter has been taken up both by the Board of Direc- 
tors and by various members of the Executive Committee. It has not, however, 
been discussed by the Executive Committee at a meeting at which a quorum was 
present. So far| there has been a definite division of opinion within the organ- 
iaztion, and personally, I feel that there is something to be said on both sides of 
the question. As you know, the December 1936 issue of the "Research Bulletin 
on the Soviet Union" carried an article on Criminaf Lavp in the U. S. S. R. For 
the March issue of the Bulletin, Mr. Carter has written a review of the verbatim 
report of the "Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Center." Beyond this, we have 
at present no plans for publications on this suliject. 

I shall be delighted to let you know if we are going to do anything further. 
I cannot tell you how valuable it is to have the opinion of persons like yourself 
on a matter of this kind. With many thanks for the words of praise on the 
publications, 

Sincerely yours, 

[s] Virginia Burdick 
[t] Virginia Burdick. 
VB:LB 

Exhibit No. 705 

129 East 52nd Street, 
New York City, March SO, 19S8. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

1795 California Street, San Francisco, California. 
Dear Fred : May I congratulate you and your colleagues on the current issue 
of Photo History. I would be interested to know how widely you are using this 
for cultivation purposes for members and potential contributors. 

Sincerely yours, ^ ^ 

[t] Edward C. Carter. 



129 East 52nd Street, 
New York City, March, 30, 1938. 

Mr. Charles F. Loomis, 

216 Dillingham Building, Honolulu, T. H. 
Dear Charles : As an illustration in the way in which the Institute of Pacific 
Relations makes available its material through outside channels to a wide 
audience, I take please in sending you a copy of the current issue of Photo 
History. 



4146 ESrSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

It is not until you reach page 66 that the editors come to acknowledgement of 
sources and there you will find that every one of the hooks mentioned, with the 
exception of those by Lyde and Smedley, are by I. P. R. authors. You will notice 
also that the editors acknowledge their indebtedness to the Institute of Pacific 
Relations Library and the Far Eastern Survey. 

It is barely possible that Mr. Atherton, Mr. Anderson, Riley Allen and others 
will be interested in this. 
Sincerely yours, 

[t] Edward C. Cakteb. 



Exhibit No. 706 



129 East 52nd Street, 
New York, 26th April, 1938. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 

J795 California Street, San Francisco, California. 

Dear Fred : The other day three copies of the first volume of the famous Soviet 
Atlas arrived at this ofiice, one for the Amco, one for Carter and one for Holland, 
and we have all thumbed through it enthusiastically. 

I wonder if you have already seen the Atlas itself; but if not, I think you may 
like to see this note which I have drafted for possible use in I. P. R. Notes. 
Perhaps you would be kind enough to pass this on to Owen. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Han-seng 

[t] Chen Han-seng. 



26th April, 1938. 
Note on the Great Soviet World Atlas 

Parallel to their other record-breaking achievements, the Russians have 
now made a notable advance in a new field. The appearance of the first volume 
of the Great Soviet Atlas last November, which is to be followed by a second 
volume this year and a third volume early in 1939, marks the height of modern 
cartography. Not only are there many innovations of presentation but the bulk 
itself is extremely impressive. The size of the first volume alone is equal to any 
major atlas that has so far appeared anywhere in the world. 

In spite of the fact there are single page maps of 17^2 by 10 inches, double 
page maps of 17% hy 21i/> inches and some folding pages, the Atlas is still easily 
handled by means of a simple loose-leaf device. This metallic lever and the mul- 
tiple coloured sheets — often 15 to 20 colours on one map — testify to the ad- 
vance of Soviet industry, and the host of new ideas evidently behind the draft- 
ing, particularly in the political and economic spheres, makes this Atlas almost 
a revolution in cartography. 

The total number of pages of the Soviet Atlas more than doubles that of 
Stiller's Atlas in German or the Times Atlas in English, and this is also true of 
the actual map space; yet in this case the time for production has been halved 
by means of a huge staff of 175 editors and cartographers. Indeed a special 
institute for the Atlas has been established in Moscow and this will work on 
subsequent revisions. Professor V. E. Motylev, the Chairman of the U. S. S. R. 
Council of the I. P. R. is the Director of this Institute, and concurrently one 
of the five on the Editorial Committee of the Atlas. 

Whereas the second volume of the Atlas will deal with the regions of the 
Soviet Union and the third volume with other countries in detail, the first 
volume is devoted to 83 world maps in the first part and 85 maps of the entire 
Soviet Union in the second part. The maps of the Soviet Union in this volume 
begin with the political and administrative aspects followed by the topographical 
and the geological, the meteorological and the mineral, the vegetative and animal 
distributions, the heavy and light industries, the chemical and electric indus- 
tries ; forestry, agriculture and collective farming ; general economic and the 
technical culture, communications and commerce, and finally, as an apparent 
appendix, a map showing the Russian administrative regions as existed on 
January 1st, 1914. 

The first part of this volume, however, will probably claim the widest interest. 
It can be divided into three groups. The first group is physicogeographical, in- 
cluding astronomical, topographic, geological, seismological ; meteorological, 
both aerial and oceanic in January and June; and maps showing the develop- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4147 

ment of cartography, geographical expeditions, the Arctic and the Antarctic, 
magnetic aberrations, soil conditions, and vegetative and animal distributions. 
The second group is that of socio-economic maps which show population and 
migration, nationalities and religions, electric power, coal output, metal pro- 
duction; mechanical, chemical and textile industries; timber and paper manu- 
facture, agriculture, commerce, communications, and the export and import of 
capital and financial dependence. The third group consists of political maps of 
the world, one for 1783, one for 1784 to 1876, and one for 1877 to 1914, one for 
the strategic military movements on the European theatre of the War of 1914- 
1918, and a contemporary political map of the world. In addition, there follow 
special maps showing the political and economic situation of the Pacific area at 
present. 



Exhibit No. 707 

Office of the Secretary-General 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

Amsterdam — Honolulu — London — Manila — Moscow — New York — Shanghai — Sydney — 

Tokyo — Toronto — Wellington 

129 East 52nd Street 

new yoek city 

15th October, 1937. 
Frederick V. Field, Esq., 

San Francisco. 

Deae Fred : As you may well imagine, some of us here have had some inter- 
esting chats with Karl August since his arrival. His general view of the po- 
litical developments in China are less optimistic even than mine — and you know 
what that means. At any rate, while he would give only 5 percent on chance for 
Chiang Kai-shek to become a second Kemel Pasha, I would certainly give at 
least ten percent. 

You will recall that my open letter to Amerasia refuting Roger Greene's ar- 
ticle on China has caused some embarrassment; but I am glad to inform you 
that since Hu Shih's arrival in New York there has been a "rapprochement." 
The other day, Hu Shih insisted upon my meeting Roger, for according to Hu he 
is pro-Chinese, while his brother, Jerome, is pro-Japanese. At any rate, we three 
had a good chat in Hu's room and the good news is that Roger is going to offer 
his lectures free in an attempt to rally medical aid for China. Incidentally, I 
may say, it was due to Roger's effort that the American Red Cross did not give 
a smaller sum than $100,000 ; but of course, Hu agrees with me that he does not 
know how to write articles. 

It is interesting that no sooner was this "rapprochement" established than I 
ran into another controversy — this time with the columnist of the Daily Worker. 
I have written a review of Harry Cannes' book on China, originally for Amerasia, 
and that is why the first draft is so long. Later when the Managing Editor told 
me that they were not going to use it, I cut it to half its length and offered it to 
Pacific Affairs. Another piece, reviewing the same book, will appear in the 
Living Age, under my name. I am enclosing the original draft which you may 
care to read. 

I wonder if you have noted an AP wire from Tokyo, dated October 13th, that 
tells in effect the poor show in Japan as regards the subscription of the 200 mil- 
lion yen war bonds. In Japanese history, such a subscription of bond issues has 
always been led by the government to rally public enthusiasm, and the subscrip- 
tion of government and semi-government institutions is usually prearranged 
immediately beforehand. The fact that this subscription only amounted to 12 
million yen on tlie first day certainly anticipates rather slow and inadequate 
private enthusiasm. 

Surely you must have been impressed by yesterday's news that in Tokyo, the 
Emperor has appointed in the presence of the Privy Council Members a Cabinet 
Advisory Council. I am inclined to think that this is the first and foremost sig- 
nificant phenomena in the Japanese political world since the outbreak of the 
present war. On the one hand it shows that even the well represented and 
unified cabinet, such as the present one, indeed the strongest Cabinet since 1905, 
proves inadequate to cope with the present situation. We can readily infer that 
the Japanese textile interest together with other people in the light industry 



4148 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

for export, (the textile being perliaps tlie best organized of all industries in 
Japan) have been greatly irritated li.v the loss of market, curtailment of raw 
material import, and the prospect of a long war. 

On the other hand, however, this new super-Cabinet is the surest and most 
definite indication of Fascistic development in Japan. Nominally, the ten mem- 
bers of this council are "accorded the same treatment and rank as Cabinet 
ministers." They are in reality more or less like premiers or a body of px-emiers 
since only the premier and not the ministers, hitherto, has been appointed by the 
Emperor directly. In other words, tlie newly appointed ten people will remain in 
power regardless of sul)sequent Cabinet changes. Even if the next general 
election in Japan should l)y chance set up a liberal parliament and therefore per- 
haps a liberal cabinet, this super-Cabinet will I'emain in power. These ten people 
can advise the Emperor and at the same time dictate to the Cabinet. The 
consolidation of Japane.se Fa.scistic forces is clearly reflected in the actual stand- 
ing of these new appointees. 

Indeed what seems to me equally significant is that the Japanese militarists 
are utilising the wartime urgency to successfully bring together military groups 
which hitherto have not been reconcilable, and to a much les.ser extent this is also 
true of the navy. General Araki (1), the famous leader of the younger military 
elements is now appointed together with General Ugaki, (2) former governor 
general of Korea and a militai\v figure who is capable of the most effective 
political intrigues and coup d'etat. This well-known opportunist, with all his 
prestige, has commanded a group of military people both young and old ; and now 
sitting together with Ai-aki in the same Council, brings his followers into coopera- 
tion with the group led by his colleague. Admiral Suetsugu (3), is perhaps the 
parallel of Araki, in the navy and Admiral Baron Abo (4), is somewhat parallel 
to Ugaki, but less opportunistic and more refined in personal manner. Suetsugu 
is very outspoken and an ardent advocate of Japanese naval equality and of 
denouncing the Nine Power Treaty. Abo is not so extreme a nationalist as 
Suetsugu, being older in years and representing the traditional polished manner 
of the high-born Japanese. By appointing both these admirals the loyalty of the 
entire navy is ensured for whoever does not like the one is bound to like the 
other. 

Two party politicians have been appointed, but they are careerists who at any 
moment are ready to betray their party. Chuji Machida (5), president of Min- 
seito, now sits together with Yonezo Maeda (6), who is Secretary-General of 
Seiyukai. (The President of this party, Seiyukai, is Sutsuki, but he has been in 
bad health for a long time.) Both are important in representing certain financial 
and business interests. The Minseito is known as the spokesman for Mitsubishi, 
while the Seiyukai still represents the landlord interests. It is interesting to 
note that Mitsubishi needs only to be indirectly represented in the new Council 
through Machida, because, unlike Mitsui, no direct representation is really 
necessary. Since Mitsubish, more than any other firm, has gone into the ammu- 
nition industry, they feel sure that their interest is already represented by the 
war itself. Mitsui is directly represented by Seihin Ikeda (7), who was not long 
ago Minister of Finance and is now president of the Bank of Japan. This fa- 
mous pro-fascist financier has been long regarded as the chief staff officer for 
Mitsui. The interest of Sumitomo, which includes the interest in Korea, and that 
of the Osaka financiers, may be said to be represented by Ugaki who also has a 
persuading infiuence over certain light industry people. Then I see the appoint- 
ment of Matsuoka (S) may mean more than merely representing the S. M. R. (of 
which Mitsubishi holds a large interest) ; I suspect that this outspoken type of 
fascist is now charged with the task of rallying the support of the independent 
financiers and industrialists in Japan. 

The appointment of another famous pro-fascist is found in the person of Baron 
Goh (9), who you probably met in 1035 in your Far Eastern economic mission. 
You may recall that he can speak both German and French, and he is certainly 
a distinguished leader in what I may call the Japanese "Liberty Leagaie," which 
was organized nearly ten years before the American one came into being. The 
tenth appointee is a distinguished bureaucrat, Kiyoshi Akita (10), a former Sei- 
yukai member who became "independent" two years ago. You may recall reading 
his name as Vice Minister of Home Affairs and of Communications dui-ing the 
famous Tanaka Cabinet. 

Of the ten only two are 100 percent fascist both by personal conviction and by 
reputation (Araki and Matsuokp), and only two are stout fascists (Goh and 
Ikeda) because they have long supported financially, fascist organisations. 
With this set-up and during war time, however, it is very easy for the extreme 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4149 

nationalist, opportunistic politicians and bureaucrats to fall into the fascist net. 
Perhaps you may ask me who on this new Council represents the controlling 
interest in the rural districts? First, I would answer, that there is no need in 
the super-Cabinet, of such a representation and then, the present Cabinet can 
well take care of this issue. The present Minister of Agriculture, Count Arima. 
is from Kyushu (the Nagaski region) and is capalile of influencing the peasant 
unions in western Japan. But more important in this respect is the north of 
Japan, especially the rice and silk region of Nigata, etc., and here we find the 
majority of the 5,<X)0.000 followers of the ''Living Buddha," i. e.. Count Ohtani, the 
uncle of Emperor Hiroshia and the real leader of the famous Nishi Honganji 
Temple in Kyoto. Count Ohtani is now serving as Minister of Education in 
Japan. 

You must not think that I make any political analysis, but the news of this 
new political council in Japan so impressed me that I have not been able to help 
writing this rambling letter and :;t least I would like to recommend to you this 
brilliant political strategy of our common enemy. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Han-seng, 

[t] Chen Han-seng. 



Exhibit No. 708 

Office of the Secretary-General 

Institute of Pacific Relations 

Amsterdam — Honolulu — Shanghai — Manila — London — Moscow — New York — Paris — 
Sydney — Tokyo — Toronto — Wellington 

129 East 52nd Street, 

new york city 

24th March, 1938. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field. 

San Francisco, California. 

Dear Fred : In response to your wire of March 12th, I began to write a sketch 
showing the general military situation in China so as to continue the chronologi- 
cal description in the March issue of Amerasia. In the process, however, I found 
the original MS from Hong Kong, though to a certain extent already revised, 
inadequate and unsubstantial. With some additional Information from other 
sources, I decided to rewrite the whole thing. Enclosed is a copy of what I have 
not sent to the Amerasta office here. As it is not intended in any way as an article 
I have asked not to have my signature appear on it. 

Have you by any chance seen the translation of the 8th Route Army oath of 
loyalty? I enclose a copy with underlines. From the indications from several 
directions, it is quite certain now that China is on the threshold of a new era, 
and as this fact becomes more apparent it can not but hasten the attempts of a 
London-Tokyo rapprochement. Have you any inside dope on this? 

With greetings to Edith and yourself. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Han-seng. 

[t] Chen Han-seng. 

Loyalty Oath Taken by 8th Route Army 

Japanese imperialism is the mortal enemy of the Chinese nation. The imperial- 
ists strive to enslave our country and destroy our nation ; they kill our relatives 
and friends, violate our mothers, wives and sisters, burn down homes, destroy 
our farms, implements, and cattle. In the name of our nation, our country, our 
fellow countrymen, in the name of our children and grandchildren, we swear to 
resist the Japanese aggressors to the end. 

For six years already we have been fighting to save our fatherland from the 
Japanese aggressors. A united national front has already been established. 
Onr army has been renamed ihe People's Revolutionary Army, and we are set- 
ting off to the front lines to destroy the enemy. 

We sincerely siipiwrt the National Government and Chiang Kai-shek, President 
of the Military Council, icho are in charge of the defense of our country against 
the Japanese aggressors. We undertake to subordinate ourselves to the single 



4150 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

command of the Military Council, strictly to observe discipline and not to return 
Jiome vntil the Japanese aggressors have teen driven out of our country, until all 
national traitors are wiped off the face of our land. 

We, sons of workers and peasants, sircar that ire shall not deprive the popula- 
tion of a single thread ; ive swear always to serve the interests of the people, 
to adopt a brotherly attitude to troops fighting shoulder to shoulder with us 
against the common enemy; we swear to ie devoted to the revolution. We are 
prepared to accept the citicism of comrades and to ansiver for it with all the 
severity of revolutionary discipline should we violate the interests of the nation. 



Exhibit No. 709 

Office of the Secretary-General 

Inbtititte of Pacific Relations 

Amsterdam — Honolulu — London — Manila — New York — Paris — Shanghai — Sydney — 

Tokyo — Toronto — Wellington 

129 East 52nd Street 

nhw yoek citt 

22nd Septembek, 1937. 
Frederick V. Field, Esq., 

San Francisco. 
Dear Fred : Herewith I enclose a copy of the review of Shuhsi Hsii's book, 
which I promised to send to you. This review has been sent to the Canadian 
Historical Review because Owen sent one in written by himself for Pacific 
Affairs. He criticised Hsii severely because of his unfairness to the Chinese 
Communists and the Mongols, and I certainly prefer to have his review in our 
quarterly because it contains more of political and educational value, mine 
being technical and historical. 

I hope the mild aid in California will materially assist Edith in her quick 
recovery, and that you are daily unearthing things of interest in your own work. 
With greetings to both of you, 
Sincerely yours, 

s] Chen Han-seng 
[t] Chen Han-seng. 

[Sent to the Canadian Historical Rci^iew'] 

The North China Problem 

(By Shuhsi Hsii, Ph. D., Shanghai, Hong Kong, Singapore: Kellv & Walsh, Ltd., 

1937, pp. 112) 

The large scale military resistance in China against further Japanese aggres- 
sion in the summer of this year, must have come as a surprise to those who did 
not fundamentally understand the Sino-Japanese relations. Even such a noted 
political scientist as Shuhsi Hsu, did not anticipate this in the spring when he 
wrote the chapter, "The Outlook." in the present volume. Chinese unity after 
the Sian incident, the changing international situation, were taken by the author 
as hopeful factors which might induce "the rulers of Japan to revise their i)olicy 
concerning North China." 

Apparently Dr. Hsii has attempted to present a brief review of Sino-Japanese 
relations since 1933, chiefly covering the Hopei-Chahar phase, the Inner Mon- 
golian problem and the eight conferences between the Chinese Foreign Minister 
and the Japanese Ambassador from September 15th to December 3rd, 1936. The 
main revelation of this volume, however, lies in a clear expose of the general 
policy followed by the National Government throughout those past years. A 
mere perusal of this report would unmistakably make the reader aware that 
Nanking was not only pursuing a policy of nonresistance but at certain times 
was even attempting to reach a conditional "readjustment" of its relations with 
Japan. After the friendly visit of Dr. C. H. Wang to Tokyo in the spring of 1935, 
and the special efforts of General Chiang Tso-pin in Tokyo during the autumn, 
as narrated by this author, at the beginning of 1936, General Chang Chun, then 
Minister of Foreign Affairs, "courageously invited the Japanese to open nego- 
tiations." These negotiations were abruptly suspended owing to the Tokyo 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4151 

military coup d'etat of February 26tli, but "tlie readiness of the Nationalist Gov- 
ernment to carry on discussion with Tokyo in spite of the Hirota Principles 
created a great deal of misgiving among the members of the Southwestern 
Political Council." 

After the suspension of the series of conferences between Chang Ohun and 
Kawagoo, because of the Suiyuan invasion, and after the Sian incident, the 
leaders of the National Government still found an opportunity to express their 
willingness fur cooperation and readjustment. In the middle of March, 1937, 
when a mission of Japanese industrial leaders arrived in Nanking, General 
Chiang Kai-shek proceeded from Kuling to greet them with a speech in which he 
"asked the distinguished visitors for their sympathy for China in this period of 
national reconstruction, which he compared with the Restoration and early 
Meiji Era in Japan." The Generalissimo concluded his pleading by offering to 
the Mission a classical quotation which reads : "Benevolence and love are real 
treasures," and their friendly tone was further stressed by the Minister of 
Industry, Wu Ting-chang, who said that the way of cooperation between the two 
countries must lie in "shaking hands" and not ".shaking fists." 

Such speeches may mei'ely have been diplomatic gestures, but they are un- 
doubtedly indicative of their anxiety for peaceful adjustment at that time. 
Readers must remain indebted to Dr. Hsu for his elucidation of the Nanking 
attitude without an understanding of which many important events in China 
during the past few years cannot be made intelligible. For instance, in March, 
19.33, "the troops before Shankaikwau were ordered to retreat to the Luan River 
as a gesture of pacific intention towards the Japanese," and "by July 12, 1933, 
Chahar was cleared of the Japanese. At this point the Central Government 
stepped in. In order not to give the Japanese a pretext to start trouble again, 
General Feng was advised to disband his troops and leave the province." 

Throughout the book, however, there is no indication whatsoever as to the 
reason why the Japanese on their side have never yielded to the Nanking argu- 
ment. Thus the author has not touched the fundamental point of the subject 
on which he was writing. After reading this book, one cannot help feeling 
perplexed as to just why the Japanese launched a new attack this summer, nor 
can one fully appreciate the reasons for the Generalissimo's last stand and 
military resistance. 

One cannot help entertaining doubts when one reads such a statement as that 
"the Shanghai incident was settled on the whole in a satisfactory way." Is it 
not tnie that the demilitarized zone established by the Shanghai Truce in 1932 
was the first of a series of such zones as created later by the Tangku Truce, the 
Ho-Umetsu Understanding and the Chin-Doihara Agreement? Is it generally 
thought that such arrangements can be called "satisfactory"? Then it is in- 
deed difficult for a layman to understand why "Japanese connivance at the nar- 
cotic trade in North China, though iniquitous, can scarcely be taken as a policy 
for the exploitation of what they consider to be their special position there," 
especially when one reads further that Dr. C. H. Wang, when seeing Hirota on 
January 22nd, 1935, expressed the wish that Japan would not support the nar- 
cotic trade. For the narcotic question, reference is made to the Information 
Bulletin of the Council of International Affairs, Nanking, which is directed by 
the author him.self. But this bulletin simply points out that "there can be no 
end to this vast narcotic traffic until there is an end to extraterritoriality, al- 
though there is a remote possibility that the Japanese authorities may see the 
wisdom of taking measures against it." 

Further, one is led to doubt whether the author really understands the internal 
politics of Japan as related to foreign policy, when one finds that he believes that 
the Japanese industrial leaders were no longer, to such an extent, the silent 
partners of the militarists after the February coup d'etat of 1936. One is also 
surprised by his incomplete information on the Japanese economic penetration in 
North China. While he mentions the Japanese gain in the salt industry and 
shipping and the Chinese loss in the Tientsin textile mills, he has not brought 
out the advance made by the Japanese in cotton production and the electric 
industry. Certainly, the chapter on the Diplomatic phase of the North China 
problem is very inadequate. Such important and significant items as the Ger- 
man-Japanese Alliance and the American Neutrality Act are not discussed at 
all, and even if he did wish to confine himself to press comments, one wonders 
why an opinion from a no less impoi'tant quarter than tho.se quoted, Moscow, 
should be omitted. No attempt has been made even to clarify the Chinese 
internal politics as related to the North China problem. One finds frequent ref- 
erences to "the renegade Chinese irregulars," the "Manchukuo irregulars" and 



4152 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

the "Jehol ii-regulars," without any enlightenment as to their origin and nature. 
The author correctly reported that Prince Teh "repeatedly declared that it was 
not his intention to cut Mongolia loose from China, but ratlier to place it under 
the direct control of the Central Government," but there is not a single word of 
elucidation on this point. 

If these are the defects, Dr. Hsii's book can hardly be regarded as good history. 
It is however an excellent document both as a record of Nanking's policy in 
the past few years and as a pointer to what may be Chinese academic limitations. 

C. H-s. 



Exhibit No. 710 



Federated Press, 

Eastern Bitreau, 
90 Irving Place, Neiv York City, June 4, 1938. 
Mr. Frederick V. Field, 
129 E. 52n(l street, 

New York City. 

Dear Mr. Field : We are inviting the friends of the Federated Press to a recep- 
tion for Carl Haessler, of Chicago, FP managing editor. Mr. Haessler, who has 
been publicity director for the large West Side Local of the United Automobile 
Workers in Detroit for the past year, has been in the thick of the fight Michigan 
workers are currently engaged in to maintain the wage scales won during the 
great strikes of the winter of llt37. 

The occasion will also serve to introduce Alexander L. Crosby, recently ap- 
pointed news editor of the FP Eastern Bureau, and Henry Zen, Washington Bu- 
reau manager. 

Tlie three bureau chiefs will speak briefly of the various vitally important la- 
bor developments and i.'^sues as they see them from the inside. 

The reception is to be at the home of Ernest L. Meyer, New York Post column- 
ist, 00 Gramercy Park, at 5 o'clock, Monday afternoon, June 13. We shall be 
delighted to have you come. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Marc Stone 

[t] Marc Stone, Biisines.s Manager. 

Central Bureau : 160 N. La Salle Street, Chicago, 111. 
Washington Bureau : 1410 H Street NW, Washington, D. C. 

Senator O'Conor. Very well, I believe that is all. Thank you very 
much. 

(Whereupon, at 2 : 10 p. m., the committee was recessed subject to 
the call of the Chair.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

Senator Watkins. The committee will resume the session. 

TESTIMONY OF MOSES FINLEY, ENGLEWOOD, N. J. (ACCOMPANIED 
BY HIS COUNSEL, JOSEPH A. FANELLI) 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Finley, you have been sworn. 
Mr. Finley. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Will you <iive your name and address to the reporter? 
Mr. Finley. ISIoses Finley, i21() Tryon Avenue, Englewood, N. J. 
Senator Watkins. The record will show at this point that the wit- 
ness was sworn in executive session, today. 

Mr. Morris. What is your present occupation ? 

Mr, Finley. I am a teacher. 

Mr. Morris. Where are you teaching? 

Mr. Finley. At Eutgers University. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4153 

Mr. MoREis, Are yon operating under a grant from the Ford Foun- 
dation ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. How long have you had that ? 

Mr. FixLEY. Since July 1, 1951. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Finley, are you now a member of the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. FiNLEY. No. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. Have you ever been a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Finley. I must respectfully decline to answer on the grounds 
of the first and fifth amendments and whatever other constitutional 
privileges are available to me. 

Senator Watkixs. In other words, you claim if you gave an an- 
swer to that question, it might incriminate you? 

Mr. Finley. Yes. 

Mr. ]MoijRis. "Was a Communist study group ever held at your 
home ? 

]\Ir. Finley. No; it was not. But I am aware of the fact that in 
previous testimony by Dr. Wittfogel, such charge was made. Now 
he said, for example, that he knew that one of these study groups was 
under the chairmanship of Daniel Thorner, and that I said to him — 
that is, "Wittfogel — that this was our history study group. Appar- 
entl}- what he has confused there is the Graduate History Society of 
Columbia University, which is one of the official organizations that 
exists in every department of a university, of which Daniel Thorner 
was president. Its main function was to have various faculty speak- 
ers, and Thorner invited Wittfogel to address one of the regular meet- 
ings of the Graduate Historj^ Society, but I am completely at a loss 
to understand another reference that he made — — 

Mr. Morris. Just one minute. Have you heard the testimony of 
Mr. Thorner saying that there was a group that studied music that 
met at your house ? 

Mr. Finley. I haven't heard the testimony. 

Mr. Morris. Is that testimony true ? 

Mr. Finley. That it was a group studying music is putting it a 
little formally. 

Mr, Morris. Did a group meet at your house? 

Mr. Finley. Yes. We had open house for friends of mine on 
Sunday evenings. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a Communist at that time? 

Mr. Finley. I nuist decline to answer. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know if Thorner was a Communist? 

Mr. Finley. I have no reason to believe he was. 

Mr. Morris. Yet when we asked Mr. Thorner if he was at that 
time, he refused to answer. 

Senator Watkins. When you say you have no reason, just what do 
you mean, "no reason"' ? 

Mr. Finley. I have none whatsoever, Senator. 

I have studied just enough logic to know that for anyone but your- 
self you can never answer flatly and absolutely you know of some- 
thing. 

Senator Watkins. Did you ever hear him discuss communism? 
Mr. Finley. Not that I remember. 



4154 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Watkins. Did you ever hear him declare he was or was 
not a Communist ? 

Mr. FiNLEY, I certainly have never heard him declare he was. I 
don't remember whether I lieard him declare he was not. 

Senator Watkins. Was there anytliing in his conduct that led you 
to think that he was in any way a Communist? 

Mr. FiNLET. No. 

Senator Watkins. Did you ever discuss communism with him? 

Mr. FiNLEY. In any formal sense; no. 

Senator Watkins. You never heard it discussed by others or him 
in your presence? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I find it liard to answer that in the conditions of the 
1930's. We talked about current events. 

Senator Watkins. You would not say now that communism was 
not discussed with him, would you ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Flatly, no: no, I wouldn't say. 

Senator Watkins. In other words, you would say as a matter of 
fact that you would not remember whether it was or was not ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. That is correct. 

Senator Watkins. It could have been? 

Mr. FiNLEY. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you make a statement, Mr. Finley, that you would 
not know conclusively whether any other person was a Commu- 
nist except yourself? 

Mr, Fanelli. No ; as to a person in oeneral, as to a name, that the 
only person you could be sure about, that one was a Communist or 
was not, was yourself. 

Mr. INIoRRis. That is what I meant. So that by asking Mr. Finley 
questions we could never know that anybody was a Communist. 

Mr. Fanelli. What he is saying is as to membership in an organ- 
ization, as to whether one was not at any time in an organization. You 
can be sure of no party but yourself. 

Mr. Morris. You are saying that you can never be sure that one 
was not a Communist except with reference to yourself. 

Mr. Fanelli. Unless you were a Communist with him. I am sure 
he does not mean to deny that. 

Senator Watkins. What does the witness understand by the mean- 
ing of Communist ? What does it mean to you ? 

Mr. Finley. Primarily membership in the Connnunist Party. 

Senator Watkins. Your answers are based on that definition? 

Mr. Finley. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. Do you think a man could be an advocate of the 
Communist cause without being a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Finley. I suppose so, yes. 

Senator Watkins. You keep that definition in mind with respect 
to future questions that are asked because I think maybe we will be 
splitting hairs on the question of whether a man is a card-carrying 
Connnunist or not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever see Daniel Thorner pay Communist 
Party dues? 

Mr. Finley. No. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Mr. Herbert Norman ? 

IMr. Finley. I never met him and I never heard his name until I 
saw it in Wittfogel's testimony. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4155 

Mr. Morris. Under that name or any other name? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I can only presume that I never knew him under any 
other name. 

]\Ir. Morris. Did you ever meet Mr. Lawrence K. Rosinger ? 

Mr, FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did INIr. Lawrence Rosinger ever attend meetings at 
your home ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. To the best of my recollection, no. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Andrew Roth ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Andrew Roth ever attend meetings at your 
home ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I am sure not. 

Mr. MoRius. Did you ever meet Mr. Cristanzi ? 

Mr. FixLEY. No. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Mr. John Hazard ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Hazard ever attend meetings at your home? 

Mr. FiNLEY. No. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Mr. Wittfogel ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. "Wittfogel ever attend a meeting at your home ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I do not think so. I have no recollection of his ever 
attending a meeting at my home. He has been at my home. 

Mr. Morris. In the company of more than one person ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Under circumstances that could conceivably be called 
a meeting? 

Mr. FiNLEY. All right. 

Mr. Morris. I do not know. The difference may be whether some- 
thing is formally a meeting or a collection of people discussing a com- 
mon subject. 

Mr. FiNLEY. He was there under circumstances of common discus- 
sion; yes. 

Senator Watkins. How many would be there at that meeting ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Presumably four or five people. 

Senator Watkins. Why presumably? Do you not have a recollec- 
tion of how many would be there ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Senator, all this is 1938 and 1939, and I don't have a 
recollection of three or five people sitting in a living room, that precise. 
That is my difficulty. 

Senator Watkins. You say the meetings were all small ones? 

Mr. MoRins. Did you ever meet Mr. William Mandel ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I have met him very casually, maybe twice. 

Mr. Morris. Do you have any reason to know that Mr. William 
Mandel is a Communist? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I know nothing about Mr. William Mandel. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Mr. Theodore Guiger ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Guiger ever attend a meeting at your home? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. Do you know any Communists? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I must decline to answer on the grounds previously 
stated. 



4156 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Watkins. Even now, even under the present condition 
where you say you are not a Communist? I am asking if you know- 
any Communists ? 

Air. FixLEY. I know no one now who I know to be a Communist. 

Senator Watkins. How far back from now would you make the 
same answer ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I must decline to answer on the grounds previously 
stated. 

Mr. Fanelli. I think Mr. Morris understands our position on that. 
I went over it this morning. 

Senator Watkins. Maybe he does. Probably I do not. 

Mr. Faxelli. I want to make it clear. 

Senator Watkix^s. At the present time I want to make it clear that 
he is willing to say now he is not a Communist but he is not willing 
to answer the question with respect to other times in the past. 

Mr. Fanelli. Let me say this: He is entirely willing to answer a 
question as to the date in the past if it is one question; and put it 5 
years back, he is perfectly willing to answer that question. However,, 
if counsel is going to go on or if the Committee is going to go on and 
ask him 6 years, T years, there comes a point where his privilege 
evaporates, and since I have no assurance that the committee will not 
go on, I have advised him to answer now questions as to the past. If 
this committee will assure me that it will ask him one question as of 
a given date, I probably would advise the witness to answer. 

Senator Watkins. We can give no assurance whatever. We are 
making no agreements with any witness. We want the truth. 

Mr. Fax^elli. That is the reason he is not answering questions of 
the counsel, because I do not know how far back the committee is 
going to go. 

Senator Watkins. Do you agree with the statement of your counsel ? 

Mr. Fanelli. Yes. 

Mr. Fix-LEY. Yes, I am taking counsel's advice. I will take coun- 
sel's advice on all these matters. 

Senator Watkix'^s. That is your stand, as he has just stated? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Were you an instructor to the School for Democracy? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. What school and about when ? 

Mr. Morris. Was the School for Democracy a Communist school? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Morris. Were there Communists teaching at the school? 

Mr. Fix-^LEY. I do not know. 

Mr. INIoRRis. Were you a member of the Communist Party at that 
time ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I must decline to answer on the grounds previously 
stated. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Were there people who weie dismissed from the staff 
of City College of New York for being Communist instructors at the 
school, School for Democracy at the time you were instructor in the 
School for Democracy? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. ' 

Mr. Morris. There were ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Wlio were some of those teachers ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4157 

Mr. FiNLEY. Benjamin Paskoff, Louis Lernian. 

Mr. Morris. I do not think it is necessary for the witness to continue 
adding- names. The names I don't believe are people within the scope 
of our inquiry. The question was more to determine to what extent 
the witness would give testimony before this committee on that subject. 
So, unless you think otherwise, I will ask him to discontinue. 

Senator Watkins. I would like to have the question repeated. 

Mr. McRRis. I asked the witness, Mr. Chairman, if he were teach- 
ing at the School for Democracy at the same time as instructors who 
had been at City College and who had been dismissed for Communist 
activities at the same time. 

The answer was "yes" and he did name several of the teachers. So 
I am satisfied with the witness' answer on that score. I say he does 
not have to continue to answer questions along that line as far as I 
am concerned. 

Senator Watkins. If you want to pass it, so shall I. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, it brings out the difficulty that a com- 
mittee such as our committee w^ould have of determining who is a 
Communist. Here the witness stated awhile ago that to his laiowl- 
edge he does not know anybody today who is a Communist. It poses 
quite a problem, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. I wonder if he can answer a few more questions. 
Have you ever studied communism ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Yes. 

Senator Watkins. When ? 

jNIr. FiNLEY. As a graduate student of history. 

Senator Watkins. Graduate student of history, when ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. In the middle thirties. 

Senator Watkins. Do you think you would know a Communist if 
you saw one and heard one talk ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Probably, yes. 

Mr. Morris. If you knew a man was a Communist a month ago and 
I addressed the question to you, "Do you know anybody who is a 
Communist ?'' Would you still answer in the negative ? If you knew 
a man 30 days ago to have been a Communist ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. Would you repeat the question, ]Mr. Morris? 

Mr. Morris. I grant you that it is a complicated question. But 
suppose you knew that Mr. X yesterday was a member of the Com- 
munist Party and I asked you the question today, "Do you know any- 
body today who is a member of the Communist Party?''; how would 
you answer that question ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I would probably say that I know somebody who I 
knew was a member of the Communist Party but I don't know whether 
he is one today or not. 

Mr. ISIoRRis. So when you answered the question of Senator Wat- 
kins, "Do you know anybody today who is a Communist?" and you 
said, "no", were you making such a reservation ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. I do not know anyone toda}^ whom I have ever known 
to be a Communist. 

INIr. Morris. Whom you have ever known to be a Communist ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. Morris. I think, Senator, we have gone far beyond the purpose 
for bringing the witness here today. 

88348— 52— pt. 12 9 



4158 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

It was in connection with that study ojroup in hiy home. But I 
think that the witness' presence here today does raise a lot of problems 
that I think point up the difhculties that this connnittee is confronted 
with in determining the Communist Party members. 

Senator Watkins. That difficulty has been with us all the time, not 
only with us, but every other agency that is trying to uncover com- 
munism in the United States or anyone else that is underground. 

Are those all the questions that you have? 

Mr. Morris. I have one more question. 

Did you ever meet Max Granich ? 

Mr. FiNLEY. No. 

Mr. Morris. That is all I have, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. Do you want anything more of the witness? 

Mr. Morris. That is all. 

Senator AVatkins. You may be excused. 

Mr. Morris. We have subpenaed Mr. T. A. Bisson for tomorrow 
morning and we plan to have an open hearing at 11 o'clock. But he 
is coming from California and we have no assurance from him that he 
actually is going to comply with the subpena. We presume he will. 

Senator Watkins. You want to adjourn then until 10 o'clock to- 
morrow morning? 

Mr. Morris. We will set the hearing at 11 o'clock if he comes, 
Senator. 

Senator Watkins. What I am trying to find out is whether I can 
make a definite statement. 

Mr. Morris. Yes, 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

Mr. Mandel. Mr. Chairman, at the close of this morning's session 
an agreement w^as entered into between Mr. Frederick V. Field and 
his attorney and Mr. Morris to place into the record certain docu- 
ments from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations, giving Mr. 
Field and his attorney the opportunity to go over these records. 

Now, they have gone over these records and I now ask that these 
documents 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify whether they are documents taken 
from the Institute of Pacific Relations ? 

Mr. Mandel. They are documents from the files of the Institute of 
Pacific Relatins. 

Senator Watkins. Have you marked them for the purpose of 
identification? 

Mr. Morris. They are properly marked and there is a full descrip- 
tion in the record as to what they are and what the witness' answers 
have been. 

Senator Watkins. All right, they may be received and made a part 
of the record. 

(For the documents referred to see p. 4088.) 

The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 11 
o'clock. 

(Thereupon, at 5 p. m., a recess was taken to reconvene at 11 a. m., 
Saturday, March 29, 1952.) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



r^ SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 1952 

United States Senate, 
Subcommittee To In\'estigate the ADMiNisTRATioif 

OF THE In'TERNAL SECURITY ACT AND OtHER InTERNAL 

Security Laws, of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11 a. m., in room 424, 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Homer Ferguson, presiding. 

Present : Senator Ferguson. 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, committee counsel; Robert Morris, 
subcommittee counsel, and Benjamin Mandel, research director. 

Senator Ferguson. The committee will come to order. 

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn? 

You do solemnly swear in the matter now pending before this 
committee, being a subconnnittee of the Judiciary Committee, of the 
United States Senate, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS ARTHUR BISSON, BERKELEY, CALIF., 
ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH A. FANELLI, ESQ. 

Mr. Morris. Will you state your name 'I 

Mr. BissoN. Thomas Arthur Bisson. 

Mr. Morris. What is your address, Mr. Bisson ? 

Mr. Bisson. 97 Kingston Road, Berkeley, Calif. 

Mr. Morris. Is that your formal residence? 

Mr. BissoN. That is my formal residence. 

Mr. Morris. You no longer have the residence of 40 Richards Road, 
I'ort Washington, N. Y. ? 

Mr. Bisson. No. 

Mr. Morris. What is your present occupation, Mr. liisson ? 

Mr. Bisson. University teacher. 

Mr. Morris. You are an associate professor? 

Mr. Bisson. I am a lecturer in political science in the political 
science department of the University of California. 

Mr. Morris. For how long liave you held that position, Mr. Bisson ? 

Mr. Bisson. Since September 1948. 

Mr. Morris. September 1948. 

Now, did you operate under a grant? 

Mr. Bisson. No. 

Mr. Morris. Did you have a graiit from any one of the foundations? 

Mr. Bisson. In addition to my connection with the university, yes. 

4159 



4160 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Are yoii now the beneficiary of a grant of any kind, 
Mr. Bisson? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Will yon tell ns abont it? 

Mr. Bisson. The Carnegie Corp. is snpporting a group of four proj- 
ects, two members of the political science department of the Uni- 
versity of California, one member of the history department, and, I 
think, one member in the oriental languages department. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify those people, Mr. Bisson, who are 
the beneficiaries of the Carnegie grants? 

Mr. Bisson. The two in the political science department are myself 
and Dr. Robert A. Scalapino; in the history department, Delmer M. 
Brown; in the oriental languages department, t)onald Shively. 

May I just say there I think Donald Shively is in the oriental lan- 
guages department. It is possible he is in the history department. 

Mr. Morris. You have been the beneficiary of what other grants, Mr. 
Bisson ? 

Mr. Bisson. In 1937 the Rockefeller Foundation advanced a grant 
to me covering a field research trip in the Far East for the year 1937. 

Mr. Morris. Have you had any other grants. You had a grant from 
the Rockefeller Foundation through the Institute of Pacific Relations, 
did you not? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. When was that? 

Mr. Bisson. That grant began in 1947, I think. 

Mr. Morris. How mnch money w^as involved in that one? 

Mr. BissoN, I think the amount Avas $3,000, as I remember it. 

Mr. Morris. What is your present grant? What is the amount of 
that? 

Mr. Bisson. Where the four people are involved ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Bisson. That is a $20,000 grant. 

Mr. Morris. Four people, however? 

Mr. Bisson. That money, however, does not come to the four 
people engaged in the project. It does not amount to a salary addi- 
tion to any one of the four people, but is rather to provide research 
assistance, travel assistance in this country, and also travel assistance 
to the field. 

Two or three of those men may be in Japan this summer, and next 
year, under that grant. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you go? 

Mr. Bisson. I am not expecting to go. 

Mr. SouEwiNE. Did Mr. Holland of the Institute of Pacific Rela- 
tions have anything to do with getting your present grant for you ? 

Mr. Bisson. The present grant 

Senator Ferguson. The one at California ? 

Mr. Bisson. The Carnegie grant? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. Bisson. I do not think so. To the best of my knowledge, that 
was prepared by the Institute of East Asiatic Studies in the Uni- 
versity of California through the University of California authori- 
ties. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know a Prof essor Odegard ? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4161 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did he have anything to do with getting yon this 
or any other grants or fellowships you have had ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. He had something 1x) do with the other Rocke- 
feller grant. 

Mr. SouR^viNE. But not with the present one ? 

Mr. BissoN, No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know that he and Mr. Holland were the 
two who jointly recommended you in regard to the Rockefeller grant? 

IVIr. BissoN. 1 think they were ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Have you iDeen a staff member of the Institute of Pa- 
cific Relations? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. What period of time ? 

Mr. BissoN. 1943-1945. 

Mr. Morris. Have you been listed as acting editor of the Pacific 
Affairs? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. For what period of time ? 

Mr. BissoN. It was during those 2 years. Exactly how long a 
period in those 2 years, I am not certain. I mean if you ask me by 
month. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Lattimore was the editor of Pacific Affairs until 
1941 and he was succeeded by Mr. Carter and Mr. Michael Green- 
berg ? 

Mr. BissoN. I think so. 

Mr. Morris. Did you succeed Mr. Greenberg? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not certain as to whether there may not have 
been another editor between Mr. Greenberg and my association. The 
acting editorship I think 

Mr. Morris. AVere you an employee of the Foreign Policy Associa- 
tion ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was. 

Mr. ]\Iorris. What period of time ? 

Mr. Bissox. 1929-1942. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us what Government positions you have 
held. Mr. Bisson? 

Mr. Bissox. I was a principal economic analyst with the Board 
of Economic Warfare. 

Mr. Morris. For how long ? 

Mr. Bissox. For the period January 1942 to May or June 1943. 

I was with the Strategic Bombing Survey in japan, Japan side, 
from October 1945 to, I think, March or April 1946. 

Mr. Morris. Wliat was the nature of your duties with the United 
States Strategic Bombing Survey in Japan? 

Mr. Bissox. I was attached to the over-all economic effects division 
of the bombing survey. Our task was to assess the general economic 
effects of strategic bombing during the war on Japanese economy. 

Mr. Morris. What was your job ? To interrogate various individ- 
uals on the effects of the bombing? 

Mr. Bissox. I participated in some interrogations. We collected 
materials and data on the Japanese economy from research institu- 
tions, educational institutions, and so on. 

Mr. Morris. What other Government position did you have after 
that ? 



4162 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. May I ask, are you coming back to this? 

Mr. Fanelli. He will jxive you a chance to <»:et in any documents. 

He has some documents he wants to wet in. 

Mr. Morris. What was your other Government employment ? 

Mr. BissoN. I had a third post as special assistant to the chief of 
Government section, General Headquarters, Supreme Command of the 
Allied Powers, Tokyo. 

Mr. Morris. Where was your office in connection with that em- 
ployment ? 

Mr. BissoN. My office was in what was called the Dai-ich Building, 
the general headquarters in Tokyo. 

Mr. Morris. What was your salary in that position? 

Mr. BissoN. It was $10,000. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. And when did you return from that position? 

]\Ir. BissoN. I returned from that position in the spring of 1947. 
I think I left the field early in May and probably got back to this 
country toward the end of May 1947. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, have you ever been a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. BissoN. I have not. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever been a member of the Committee for 
a Democratic Far Eastern Policy? 

Mr. BissoN. I have. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that that is an organization that has 
been cited by the Attorney General as a subversive organization? 

Mr. Bissoisr. At the present time, I do. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that it is ? 

Mr. Bisson. I do. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us, were you a member of the board of 
directors of that organization? 

Mr. BissoN. I was. 

Mr. Morris. For what period of time were you a member of the 
board of directors? 

Mr. BissoN. The period would. T think, cover from 1947 to 1949. 
I am not certain about that because I do not have the actual data 
here. 

Mr. Morris. Were you also a consultant for that organization ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you formally resign from that organization? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. Morris. On how many occasions? 

Mr. Bisson. I resigned on one occasion, which had to be repeated, 
in a sense. Under June 2'>, 1949, 1 addressed a letter to the Commit- 
tee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy reading: 

Dear Sirs : DiU"ing the past year I have been unable to keep in adequate touch 
with the activities of tlie Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy. This 
condition will exist even more strongly in the future, as I am planning to move 
permanently to California within a short time. 

I am therefoi'e submitting my resignation to the committee at this time. Will 
you kindly see that this resignation takes effect immediately? 
Yours truly, 

T. A. Bisson. 

Senator Ferguson. How long before you wrote that letter did ^ou 
decide to resign, or was that your decision? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4163 

Mr. BissoN. In the period preceding that letter I had been increas- 
ingly dissatisfied with certain aspects of the policy and activities, and 
at this time I decided to make my severance complete. 

In the preceding year or so I had had virtually no connection in an 
active sense. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you first learn that the Attorney Gen- 
eral had cited this organization as subversive? 

Mr. Bissox. I have no recollection of the exact date when I may 
have known that. 

Senator Ferguson. Was it before you wrote the letter? 

Mr. BissoN, I am not certain. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you say that that entered into your judg- 
ment as to withdrawing from this organization? 

Mr. BissoN. That was not what was primarily in my mind at that 
time. 

Senator Ferguson. In other words, the fact that it was subversive 
did not cause you to resign ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was primarily interested in the fact that the organi- 
zation was one that no longer acted along lines that I approved. 

Senator Ferguson. But at least it was not the fact that it had been 
cited by the Attorney General, because you do not state it in your 
letter and you have not stated it here. 

Mr. BissoN. That did not enter into it. 

Senator Ferguson. That did not enter into your mind. 

Now, in the May issue of 1949 you were listed as a consultant. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. That would be a fact, in the May issue, because it 
was printed prior to May, or in May? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. And your resignation did not come until June? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you get the pamphlets, the so-called Spot- 
light pamphlet? 

Mr. BissON. I assume that I did. 

Senator Ferguson. You assume that you did. Did you know that 
there was an article. The Committee Versus Tom Clark, by Maud 
Russell, executive director, Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern 
Policy? 

I will read you the first part of it : 

The Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy lias learned from the press 
that it has been designated as "subversive" in a new list circulated by the Civil 
Service Commission with a covering letter by Attorney General Tom Clark. 
The committee was not notified of the accusation ; neither was it heard at any 
inquiry nor given preliminary opportunity to answer the charge. 

I assume you read that. 

Mr. Fanelli. Did you? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not certain that I read that ; no. 

Senator Ferguson. Does not that refresh your memory that you 
read it ? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. And would you not say that it was subversive ? 
Is not that one of the reasons why you resigned, but did not put in 
your letter? Or was it? 

Mr. BissoN. That was not the reason that motivated my letter. 



4164 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. In other words, the fact that this institution 
was a subversive institution was not one of the reasons that caused you 
to resign ? 

ISIr. BissoN. I have been increasingly dissatisfied with the type of 
materials and the activities of that organization. 

Senator Ferguson. Why did you not put it in the letter that that 
was true? 

Mr. BissoN. I had worked with these people. I think it is only 
normal that one would not necessarily write a letter that would antag- 
onize them. 

Senator Ferguson. What do you mean, "antagonize them''? Why 
did you not tell them the truth ? 

Mr, BissoN. I did tell them the truth. 

Senator Ferguson. Speaking as of this moment in this witness 
chair, have you an opinion as to whether or not this organization that 
we are speaking of, the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern 
Policy, w\as a subversive institution? 

Mr. Btsson. I would not be prepared to say so ; no. 

Senator Ferguson. You were on the board and you have been get- 
'ting the pamphlets and all, and now you are not in a position to 
say so? 

Mr. BissoN. I would not — — 

Senator Ferguson. Even as of this date? 

Mr. BissoN. I w^ould not necessarily say so. 

Senator Ferguson. I will put the whole article in the record so it 
will not be taken out of context. 

(The information referred to was marls ed "Exhibit No. 711'' and 
is as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 711 

[Source: Far East Spotlight — vol. V, No. 5. May 1949] 

The Committee Against Tom Clark 

(By Maud Russell, executive director, Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern 

Policy ) 

The Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy has learned from the press 
that it has been designated as subversive in a new list cii'culated by the Civil 
Service Commission with a covering letter by Attorney General Tom Clark. The 
committee was not notified of the accusation ; neither was it heard at any inquiry 
nor given preliminary opportunity to answer the charge. 

Despite the fact that this statement is not likely to get even a small fraction 
of the publicity given to Mr. Clark's announcement, the committee now feels 
Impelled to restate its record and aims for the American press and public. 

REWARD FOR TRUTH 

Since its founding in 1945, tlie Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy 
has steadfastly advocated an American foreign policy in Asia that would be in 
accord with the Atlantic Charter, the Charter of the United Nations, and inter- 
national undertakings entered into by the United States Government. For 4 
years it has continually warned of the dangers of a failure-doomed policy of 
military support of a moribund and corrupt minority government in China ; a 
policy bound to destroy both Chinese friendship for the United States and the 
prestige and honor of America among the peoples of Asia. 

Now that events have confirmed the bankruptcy of this policy and demonstrated , 
the public service we performed in warning the American people, the committee 
is listed as subversive. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4165 

A COWARDLY ATTACK 

Such a listing, in the opinion of the committee, is intended to wreclj the good 
name that the organization has acquired, on the merits of its record, for reliable, 
factual reiiorting. It is intended to intimidate members of the organization and 
brand its workers in the eyes of tlieir friends. It can only be regarded as flagrant 
and cowardly attack on any who disagree with current policies and exercise the 
American right of free speech to voice their opinions. 

WE SHALL CONTINUE 

The committee protests against the listing. Whether it stands on the Civil 
Service Commission books or is revoked, we shall continue to work unceasingly 
and with all vigor and strength to publish the true facts on the situation in Asia 
and the effect of United States policies there. We shall continue to perform our 
four-year patriotic service of exposing and calling for changes in United States 
policies that earn hatred for Americans by obstructing the inevitably victorious 
struggle of Asia's people to free themselves from foreign exploitation, social 
oppression, and the resulting indescribable poverty in which no man on this earth 
should be forced to, or will much longer consent to, exist. 

Mr. BissoN. May I indicate further here that I learned hiter that, 
in spite of my request, they had not completely disassociated my name 
from their formal material. 

Mr. Morris. For instance, I notice in February 1950 there is a 
favorable re^aew of your book by Mr. Philip O. Keeney. It appears 
on page 13 of the February 1950 Far East Spotlight. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. When did you learn, Mr. Bisson, that they had not 
disassociated your name? 

Mr. Bisson. I had not seen any of their materials for a long time, 
and sometime during the spring of 1951 I either saw it in the library 
or someone called it to my attention, and for that reason I wrote this 
letter. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What letter? 

Mr. BissoN. A second letter, that I am about to read. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Tell us about it. 

Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

Dear Sirs : Some 2 years ago, when I resigned from your committee, I assumed 
that my name would be taken off all of your publications. Recently I noted that 
my name is still carried on your regular letterhead. I would appreciate it if you 
remove my name from your letterhead immediately. 
Yours truly, 

T. A. BissoN. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What is the date of that letter ? 

Mr. BissoN. June 4, 1951. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And you signed it and mailed it on that date? 

Mr. BissoN. That's right. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you receive into the record this 
I'eview by Philip O. Keeney of Mr. Bisson's Prospects for Democracy 
in Japan? It appears on page 13 of the February 1950 issue of Far 
East Spotlight. 

Senator Ferguson. The record also shows on this May issue that 
^Ir. Keeney was treasurer. 

Mr. Morris. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. The official record of the committee shows that 
ho refused to answer questions as to whether or not he was a 
Communist. 

Mr. Morris. That is right, on the grounds that his answers would 
tend to incriminate him. 



4166 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. It will be received. 

(The docuinent referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 712" and is 

as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 712 

[Source : Far East Spotlight, February, 1950, vol. V, No. 11] 

Far East Reading 

(Philip O. Keeney) 

Prospects for Democracy in ,Tai>an, By T. A. Bisson, The MacMillan Co., New 
York, 1049, 143 pp. $2.75. 

Mr. Bisson was an adviser un the staff of SCAP's Government Section which 
.snpervised Japanese legislation. 

After analyzing the political forces that were in power when MacArthur began 
the occupation, he concludes by saying: "This .Japanese oligarchy, confronted 
with tlie necessity of military surrender, marshaled its forces for a postwar 
struggle to preserve the political and economic bases of its power. *  * rjij^^ 
society that had produced them (armed forces) once would produce them again 
as soon as opportunity arose. If such an outcome was to be avoided, the society 
itself must be so changed as to eliminate * * * the forces that had originally 
impelled it to embark upon a course of military aggression." 

The lirst directives designed to change the framework of the prewar Japanese 
Government were greeted by a popular response "of such proportions that it took 
the occupation authorities by surprise." The two old guard parties who were in 
control of the government machinery found themselves faced with a vital problem, 
viz., to keep in check the newly rising popular forces. The simpest way to solve 
this problem was an election before new leadership arose to guide the common 
people of Japan. The situation became so bad that in 1946 a general strike was 
ordered. MacArthur prevented it. In order to save face with the Japanese people 
he scheduled a second election for April 1947. 

The reactionary forces were returned to power again though neither of the 
two old line parties gained a majority in the lower house of the Diet. For this 
reason a social democrat was chosen to fcn'm a coalition cabinet. The widely 
different points of view in this Cabinet produced long drawn out debates. Despite 
such delays certain reforms were instituted and investigations set in motion. One 
investigation became a ma.ior scandal when it was discovered that the army before 
the occupation had turned over to the Zaibatsu vast quantities of food and 
materials. 

Mr. Bisson sums up his analysis by saying that "this country failed to achieve 
the announced aims of its initial postsurrender policy toward Japan, primarily 
because those aims could not be achieved through the instrumentality of Japan's 
old guard." 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, were yon ev^er a member of an organization 
called the American Friends of the Chinese People? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Do yon know that that was an organization that has 
been cited by the Attorney General as a subversive organization? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Have you read the testimony before this committee 
that that organization was controlled by a Communist faction which 
regularly met within the organization? 

Mr. Bisson. I have not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write for the publication of that organization, 
called China Today? 

Mr. Bisson. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did yon write under a pseudonym ? 

Mr. Bisson. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write under your own name in addition? 

Mr. Bisson. I did. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4167 

Mr. Morris. Would you tell us what pseudonym you used in writing 
for that publication of the American Friends of the Chinese People, 
which has been cited as a subversive organization? 

Mr. BissON. Frederick Spencer. 

Mr. Morris. Why did you use the name of Frederick Spencer ? 

Mr. Bissox. I was working at that time with the Foreign Policy 
Association, a nonpartisan research and educational organization. 

I wrote under an assumed name for reasons that I would presume 
motivated Mr. X when he wrote his article in Foreign Affairs. I 
wanted to be able to express my views with full force without any 
feeling that I was bound by limitations existing in terms of the writ- 
ings that I did for the Foreign Policy Association. 

Senator Ferguson. But Mr. X was a public official and was writing 
about a foreign country and a foreign government. You were not 
such, were you ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was not such, but I assume that I have the same right. 
I was in a position that was relatively similar, even if not the same. 

Mr. Fanelli. The only question was, "You were not such"' and 
the answer was "No." 

Answer the Senator's questions. 

Senator Ferguson. I will ask you now whether or not you knew or 
ever heard that Frederick Spencer was the name that Frederick Van- 
derbilt Field used on the records as a Communist? That was his 
Communist name ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not know that. 

Senator Ferguson. You did not know that ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. But if that is a fact and our records show that, 
this official record of the committee shows that, that would lead the 
people to believe, who were Communists, that you were a Communist, 
would it not? Or, at least, the man writing the letter was a Com- 
munist ? 

Mr. BissoN. No ; I do not see that. 

Senator Ferguson. You do not think that is true? Here is an offi- 
cial name on the record, Frederick Vanderbilt Field. Frederick 
Vanderbilt Field is on the official Communist records as Frederick 
Spencer. 

Now, you knew Field, and you were writing under the name of 
Frederick Spencer. Would not that lead people who were Commu- 
nists reading the article to believe that it was written by Field the 
Communist ? 

Mr. BissoN. Let me get this clear. I think when you say it is on 
the official record, what you are saying is that one of the witnesses 
before this connnittee has Identified Frederick Vanderbilt Field 

Senator Ferguson. And it has not been denied by Mr. Field. 

Mr. BissoN. As Frederick Spencer. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. I am now saying that that particular attribution by 
Mr. Budenz was mistaken. 

Senator Ferguson. Wliy ? Why do you contradict Mr. Budenz on 
that, unless you know something about it ? 

Mr. Bisson. I do know something about it. 

Senator Ferguson. Tell us about it. 



4168 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. I know that I was writing under the name Frederick 
Spencer. I know also that Frederick Field, to the best of my knowl- 
edge, at the same time, was writing in the same magazine mider the 
name of Lawrence Hearn. I, therefore, think that Mr. Budenz was 
mistaken when he says that Mr. Field was writing under the name 
of Frederick Silencer. 

Senator Ferguson. I was not saying he was writing under the name 
of Frederick Spencer. His official nam.e on the Communist records 
was Frederick Spencer. 

Mr. Bissox. I have no knowledge of what his official name on the 
Communists' records are. 

Senator Ferguson. That is what our records show now — that Fred- 
erick Vanderbilt Field's Communist name was Frederick Spencer. 

Mr. BissoN. I am saying what I know from my knowledge of China 
Today. I do not know 

Senator Ferguson. Wliy do you contradict Mr. Budenz when he 
says that the official Communist name of Frederick Vanderbilt Field 
was Frederick Spencer ? Why do you contradict that ? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not contradicting that. I am saying that in terms 
of the writers on China Today I do not think that Frederick Vander- 
bilt Field was Frederick Spencer. 

Senator Ferguson. Coming back to my other question, which you 
apparently misunderstood, if he was carried on the official Communist 
records as Frederick Spencer, and then you wrote articles under that 
name, would not that lead the Communists to believe that that was 
Fred Field, the Communist, writing ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; but what I want to say here is that I have no 
knowledge that Frederick Spencer appeared as Frederick Vanderbilt 
Field on the Communist records. 

Senator Ferguson. But Frederick Vanderbilt Field knew that you 
were using the pen name of Frederick Spencer ? 

Mr. Morris. He was associated with China Today ; was he not? 

Mr. BissoN. He was. 

Mr. Morris. And he knew that you were using the name Frederick 
Spencer ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. I would like to offer you, Mr. Bisson, a copy of Cliina 
Today, February 1935, which contains a statement to the American 
people, and you will note that this statement is signed, among others, 
by Mr. T. A. Bisson and by Mr. Frederick Spencer. 

Now, you did not sign that twice, did you t 

I mean, obviously, there are two people, are there not? 

Mr. Bisson. I assume so. 

Mr. Morris. So would it not indicate to you that certainly in this 
instance some other person was using the pseudonym Frederick 
Spencer ? 

Mr. Bisson. It would seem to so indicate. 

Mr. Morris. And you notice that Mr. Field's name does not appear 
in this list of people to whom this statement was addressed. 

I will let you examine it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Morris, may I suggest that that statement and 
the list of names appended as signators be offered for the record at 
this time? 

Senator Ferguson. The whole list will be received in evidence. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4169 

(Tlie document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 713" and is 
as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 713 
[Source: China Today, vol. 1, October 1934-September 1935. February 1935, p. 90] 

To THE American People 

Today 450 million Chinese people are .strugglins for national liberation^for 
the simple right to be a free people, masters of their own destiny. The greatest 
obstacle to the success of this heroic struggle is the active interference of the 
foreign imperialist powers. The United States is one of those powers, the very 
country that was itself engaged in a great struggle to free itself from British 
colonial oppression a little more than a hundred and fifty years ago. 

It is in China that we are at this moment specifically interested because there 
we are witnessing a drama of tremendous power and significance — the breath- 
taking struggle of a great people to free itself from oppression and to establish 
its independence. 

And what has been the role of the United States in this struggle? Is it giving 
to an oppressed nation the same moral and material support that it received 
in its own revolutionary war? On the contrary, the United States, under the 
deceptive guise of the "open door policy," is playing a ruthless part in suppress- 
ing the Chinese masses and fomenting civil wars among them. It was American 
gunboats in March 1927 that took the lead in shelling Nanking and set the stage 
for Chiang Kai-shek's treacherous turn against the Chinese revolution. Today 
America is still staking its fortunes in China on Chiang Kai-shek and his 
Nanking terroristic government. Only recently the United States Senate in- 
vestigation into the munitions industry revealed the fact that at least ten million 
dollars of the wheat and cotton loan from the U. S. to the Nanking govern- 
ment was used to buy munitions for war against the 90 million Chinese people 
who are living under the flag of the Chinese Soviets. Not only has the Ameri- 
can government provided the funds for munitions to be used in this civil war, 
but it has also permitted the sale of hundreds of aeroplanes to the Nanking 
government by American aviation companies — a transaction that could not 
have been completed without specific permission from the State Department. 
From these aeroplanes have fallen thousands of death dealing bombs on inno- 
cent non-combatants — bombs spreading terror, destruction, and devastation over 
thousands of villages and millions of inhabitants. It has also supplied the funds 
for the building of aeroplane factories at Hangchow, Sliaokwan, and other places. 
And furthermore, the American government goes even so far as fb supply army 
and navy aviators who are released from active service in order to be sent to 
China as demonstrators, advisors, and pilots actually participating in bombing. 
We find among these instructors such outstanding names as Captain Frank 
Hawks. Major Doolittle, and the late Lieut. Dorsey who recently lost his life 
in this service. Thus, as someone has so aptly stated, we are permitting our 
own American soldiers to become the Hessian troops of the Chinese Revolution. 
Without this support, according to many competent observers, the reactionary 
Nanking government could not retain its power for any length of time. 

This direct interference by America in the internal affairs of China has but 
one purpose — the furthering of its imperialist designs at the expense of the 
Chinese people. The profit-mad munition makers, aeroplane manufacturers, in- 
dustrialists, and bankers, seeking new fields of exploitation for their surplus 
capital, are turning greedy eyes towards war-torn China. They look to American 
troops to protect their newly won fields. Major General Smedley D. Butler in 
his recent Armistice Day address summed up briefly but completely this condi- 
tion when he said : "For thirty-three years and four months I was an active agent 
in the greatest debt-collecting agency in the world, the U. S. Marine Corps." 

General Butler ought to know — he was for many years Commander of the 
U. S. Marines in China. 

Thousands upon thousands of American people deeply resent this interference 
by the United States in the internal affairs of China. In the name of these 
thousands, we demand : 

1. That the American government stop the sale of aeroplanes to China ; 

2. That the American government stop the release of army and navy pilots 
for military use by the reactionary militarists in China ; 

3. That America withdraw all gunboats, marines, and other armed forces in 
China ; 



4170 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

4. That America stop the shipment of munitions and financial assistance to 
Chinese militarists. 

Signed : Roger Baldwin, T. A. Bisson, Earl Browder, Winifred Chap- 
pel, George S. Counts, Malcolm Cowley, Edward Dahlberg, Ethel 
L. Dewey, Theodore Dreiser, Waldo Frank, Joseph Freeman, Beals 
E. L. French, Myrtle M. French, Mike Gold, Katherine Graham, 
Mary H. Gleason. R. M. Gyles, Granville Hicks, Josephine Jack, 
Orrick Johns, Corliss Lamont, Robert Morss, Lovett, Thora Lund, 
Edith de Nancrede, J. W. Phillips, Isidor Schneider, Frederick 
Spencer, Maxwell S. Stewart, Katharine Terrell, Harry F. Ward, 
Victor A. Yakhontoft. 

Senator Ferguson. Tlie question is : Do yon find Frederick Field's 
name on there? 

Mr. BissoN. May I ask this ? 

Mr. Fanelli. I have no objection. 

Senator Ferguson. Frederick Fields' name is not on there, is it ? 

Mr. BissoN. No, it is not. 

Senator Ferguson. Is Earl Browder's ? 

Mr. BissoN- Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Earl Browder's is? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Was Earl Browder a Communist at that time? 

Mr. BissoN. I assume that he was ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. You know he was, do you not ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Why did you sign with Earl Browder ? 

"To the American people," it is headed. 

Mr. Fanelli. May I examine this. Senator ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Bisson. I see no reason why I could not on occasion have been 
associated in that way with Mr. Earl Browder. 

Senator Ferguson. That was your privilege and I want to know 
why you di^l it. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Mr. Bisson, the Senator asked you why. Why did 
3^ou sign with Browder ? He did not challenge your right to do so ? 
He simply asked you why. 

Senator Ferguson. Why ? 

Mr. Bisson. I presumably agreed with the positions being taken 
in that case by Mr. Browder. 

Senator Ferguson. You must have read this thing before you 
signed it. 

Mr. Bisson. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you sign under both names, or did Fred 
Field sign under Spencer's name, signing his Communist name ? 

Mr. Bisson. I would not know. 

Senator Ferguson. You did not sign both ways, did you? 

Mr. Bisson. No. 

Senator Ferguson. What? 

Mr. Bisson. I do not think so. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you tell us under oath that you did or did 
not sign under the name of Bisson and the name of Spencer? 

Mr. Bisson. I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know another Fred Spencer? 

Mr. Bisson. I did not. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4171 

Senator Ferguson. This was a group of people. Will you tell us 
how many you were acquainted with ? 

Mr. Morris. Let the witness see the list. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes; the list of names. Tell us how many. 
Tell us first how many are on it, and then how many you were 
acquainted with or knew. 

Mr. BissoN. Koger Baldwin ; yes. 

My own name. 

Mr. Browder, yes. 

Winifred Chappel, no. 

George S. Counts, yes 

Mr. SouRWiNE. By yes, you mean you knew the person and by no 
you mean you did not ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Malcolm Cowley, yes. 

Edward Dahlberg, no. 

Ethel Dewey — I am not sure whether this is the wife of Dr. Dewey. 
After all, this is a list of names I have not seen for many years. 

Mr. Morris. Yes, we understand that, Mr. Bisson. 

Mr. BissoN. If this is the wife of Dr. Dewey, I would know her; 
otherwise not. 

Senator Ferguson. Speak a little louder. 

Mr. BissoN. Theodore Dreiser, no. 

Waldo Frank, no. 

Joseph Freeman, no. 

Beals E. L. French, no. 

Myrtle M. French, no. 

Mike Gold, no. 

Kathering Graham, no. 

Mary H. Gleason, no. 

R. M. Gyles, no. 

Granville Hicks, no. 

Josephine Jack, no. 

Orrick Johns, no. 

Corliss Lamont, yes. 

Robert Morss Lovett, yes. 

Thora Lund, no. 

Edith de Nancrede, no. 

J. W. Phillips, yes. 

Mr. IMoRRis. Was J. W. Phillips known to you by another name ? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Who was J. W. Phillips ? 

Mr. BissoN. Philip Jaffe. 

Mr. Morris. He was associated with you in this publication China 
Today ? 

Mr. Bisson. He was. 

Isidor Schneider, no. 

Frederick Spencer — I knew no other by the name of Frederick 
Spencer. 

Senator Ferguson. Except your own? 

Mr. BissoN. I thought that this was my own assumed name. 

Katherine Terrell, no. 

Harry F. Ward, yes. 

Victor A. Yakhontoif, ves. 



4172 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE, Mr. Bisson, do you know, or do you have any reason 
to believe that any of those persons whose names you have just read 
were under Communist discipline or had voluntarily and knowingly 
.cooperated or collaborated with Communist Party members in fur- 
therance of Communist Party objectives? 

Mr. BissoN. J assume that Earl Browder was in that category. 

Mr. SouRWiNE You stated earlier that you knew Earl Browder 
was a communist; is that correct? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Anyone else? 

Mr. BissoN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You are stating that there is no one else on this 
list that you just read whom you either knew or had reason to believe 
was either under Commuuist discipline or had voluntarily and know- 
ingly cooperated or collaborated with Communist Party members in 
furtherance of Conununist Party objectives; is that your statement, 
sir? 

Mr. Bisson. I would have to divide that question. I would not 
know any of these persons as Communist Partj^ members. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I did not ask you that. All right, I will divide the 
question. 

Do you know, or have you any reason to believe, that any of these 
persons was at any time under Communist Party discipline or Com- 
munist discipline? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Other than Mr. Browder? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know, or have you any reason to believe 
that any of these persons at any time voluntarily and knowingly co- 
operated or collaborated with Communist Party members in further- 
ance of Communist Party objectives? 

Mr. BissoN. I assume that Mr. Phillips may have done so. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You mean Mr. Jaffe? 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Jaffe, yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You say you assume. On what basis do you as- 
sume ? 

Mr. BissON. I assume that because on later occasions it was indi- 
cated that he was connected Avith Earl Browder, or associated with 
Earl Browder. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. As a matter of fact, you do not assume that about 
anybody under a question like that. Do you know, or do you have 
reason to believe? You either do or do not. You do not assume that 
anybody is a Communist, do you ? 

Mr. BissoN. The distinction that I am trying to make here, how- 
ever, is a time distinction. Some of these people at the present time 
under later conditions have clearly become known under that category 
as associating with Communist activities. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. What we want you to do, Mr. Bisson, is to name 
those persons on this list whom you either know or have reason to 
believe voluntarily and knowingly cooperated or collaborated with 
Communist Party members in furtherance of Communist Party ob- 
jectives, and then tell us what you know about them and then tell 
us what you know that gives you reason to believe that. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4173 

Mr. BissoN. And I am saying that a time distinction is necessary 
in that question because if I simply say "Yes" 

Mr. Fanelli. Go ahead and make your time distinction and answer 
his question. 

Mr. BissoN. The time distinction is that in hiter years it has become 
obvious that Mr. Phillips was associated with Earl Browder. 

Senator Ferguson. You mean Philip Jaffe ? 

Mr. Morris. Was associated with Earl Browder, did you say ? 

Senator Ferguson. Philip Jaffe. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. IMoRRis. Was the end of your statement that he was associated 
with Earl Browder? Was that the end of j^our statement just now? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. This man Phillips is Jaffe? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think also that Spencer in this par- 
ticular list is Field, because they were both using fictitious or alias 
names ? 

Mr. BissoN. The questioning thus far has led me to believe 

Senator Ferguson. If you will just not try to find out what we are 
trying to put in this record by the questions. We are ti*ying to get 
out of your mind by questions what you know. 

Mr. Fanelli. For the record, I do not believe there has been any 
indication tliat he has been trying to do that. 

Senator Ferguson. He indicates by this last thing that he does 

Mr. Fanelli. He does not have any knowledge on this subject, and 
you are asking for an opinion. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The counsel is testifying as to what the witness has 
knowledge of and I hope the Chair will 

Mr. Fanelli. He has already testified that he does not know about 
that. 

Senator Ferguson. We have not cross-examined at all on this; 
whether or not he knows. We might be able to refresh his memory by 
a few questions. 

I know that Mr. Sourwine wants to ask him some questions be- 
cause this thing does bring out in one's mind a lot of questions. 

Do you know Maxwell Stewart ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you read his name on there? 

Mr, BissoN. I don't think I did. 

Senator Ferguson. It is on there, is it not? 

Mr. Fanelli. I don't believe it is, Senator. 

Mr. BissoN. I may have skipped that as I was reading. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, his name is on there, is it not? 

Did you read Mike Gold ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did read that name. 

Senator Ferguson. You knew he was a Communist writer, did you 
not, for the Daily Worker? 

Mr. BissON. I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. You did not know that? You did not know 
that? 

Mr. BissON. I did not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know his brother, Max Granich? 

Mr. BissoN. I did later. 

88348— 52— pt. 12 10 



4174 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

]Mr. Morris. Granich was the editor of that paper, was he not, 
China Today ? 

Mr. BissoN. I think he was in a hiter ])eriod. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, would it be permitted to go through 
this list of names now and make the question very clear so there will 
be no possibility of the witness misunderstanding? 

]Mr. BissoN. I assure you that if I missed any name on that list it 
was done inadvertently. 

Mr, Fanelli. Let them go ahead and ask the question. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The question, Mr. Bisson, is this; First, did you 
know the person ? 

Mr, BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I want you to say whether you did or did not know 
when I name the name. 

Then, I want you to state whether you knew, or had any reason to 
believe, that this person had at any time been under Communist 
discipline. 

And, third, I want you to state whether you knew or had any reason 
to believe that this person had at any time voluntarily and knowingly 
cooperated or collaborated with members of the Communist Party in 
furtherance of Communist Party objectives. 

Now, if your answers are "no," we need go no further on a person 
whom you identify as one with respect to whom you had no such 
knowledge. 

If you have such knowledge or belief, then we will ask additional 
questions. 

The first name here is Roger Baldwin. 

Mr. BissoN, Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You knew him ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that Bene Baldwin ? That is not ; is it 'i 

Mr. BissoN, I would not know Bene Baldwin. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you any reason to believe he was either under 
Communist discipline or had voluntarily and knowingly cooperated or 
collaborated with Communist Party members in furtherance of Com- 
munist Party objectives? 

Mr, BissoN, I did not. 

Mr. Sourwine. The next name is your own, T. A. Bisson, Were 
you ever under Communist discipline? 

Mr. BissoN. I was not. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever voluntarily and knowingly cooperate 
or collaborate with Communist Party members in furtherance of Com- 
munist Party objectives? 

Mr. BissoN, I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Just on that, do you know what this article is? 
Was this not a Connnunist objective sponsored by the Communist 
Party under Browder? Is it not clear that that is what that was? 

Mr. INIoRRis. Mr. Chairman, I suggest you read some of that. 

Senatoi- Ferguson. I want the witness to answer that. You just 
answered the question by Mr. Sourwine. Now, what was this article 
about in reference to the question Mr. Sourwine just asked you? 

Mr. Bisson. I do not think it was necessarily a document that was 
under Communist authorization. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4175 

Senator Ferguson. Not necessarily, but was it not under the domi- 
nation of tlie Communists because Earl Browder is on it? You do 
not think Earl Browder was advocating something that was not a 
party line in 1935, do you i 

You Avere an educated man at that time, an intelligent man. You 
do not think that he was advocating something that was not the party 
line at that time, do you ? 

Mr. BissoN. Presumably not. 

Senator Ferguson. It is correct that it is presumably not. Then 
you were voluntarily and willingly on that particular article advo- 
cating the party line, were you not ? 

Mr. BissoN. On that particular article my views coincided with 
the views 

Senator Ferguson. But you were advocating it. You say now that 
the reason was that your views coincided? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. However, you were actually advocating the 
party line there and knowingly doing it with a Communist, Earl 
Browder ; is that not a fact ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Your answer was yes on the record. 

Mr. Sourwine. I think it will speed this up a little if we may have 
an understanding with the witness that a single no will mean that 
he does not know the person and that the answer to the other two 
questions is no if he does not know the person, as to the other two 
questions. 

If he did know the person, but the answer is "No," on the other two 
questions, he will simply say "I i^new him, but the answer is 'No.' " 

Is that agreeable, Mr. Bisson ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Earl Browder? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. You knew him? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. You knew him to be a person under Communist 
discipline ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And you knew him to be a person who had know- 
ingly and voluntarily cooperated and collaborated with other Com- 
munists necessarily ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRW^iNE. Winifred Chappell ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. George S. Counts? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwaNE. Malcolm Cowley? 

Mr. BissoN. No. Now, wait. The first question here is do I 
know them? 

Mr. Sourwine. That is right. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. You know Mr. Malcolm Cowley ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 



4176 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Is that your answer to the other two questions, 
"No"? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Edward Dahlberg ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Ethel L. Dewey ? 
Mr.BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Theodore Dreiser? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 
Mr. SouRwiNE. Waldo Frank ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Joseph Freeman ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Beals E. L. French ? 
Mr.BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Myrtle M. French ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 
Mr. SouRWiNE. Mike Gold ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You did not know Mike Gold ? 
Mr.BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You do not know him now ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Katharine Graham ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mary H. Gleason ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 
Mr. SouRwiNE. K. M. Gyles ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Granville Hicks ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 
Mr. SoTJRWiNE. Josephine Jack ? 
Mr.BissoN. No. 
Mr. SouRwiNE. Orrick Johns ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 
Mr. SouRWiNE. Corliss Lamont ? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That is, you knew him ? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr, SouRwiNE. And your answer to the other two questions ? 
Mr. BissoN. Are "No." 
Mr. SouRWiNE. Robert Morss Lovett ? 
Mr.BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And your aiiswer to the other two questions ? 
Mr. BissoN. Are "No." 
Mr. SouRWiNE. Thora Lund ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Edith de Nancrede ? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 
Mr. SouRwiNE. J. W. Phillips? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You knew him as Philip M. Jaffe? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 



* INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4177 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know him to be under Communist disci- 
pline ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr, SouRwiNE. Did you have any reason to believe him as such ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you know, or have any reason to believe that 
he had voluntarily and knowingly cooperated or collaborated with 
Communist Party members in furtherance of Communist Party 
objectives? 

Mr. BissoN. Not at this time. Later I did. 

Mr. Sour\\t:ne. How did you come to know that later? 

Mr. BissoN. Later there were evidences of association with Earl 
Browder, of activities involved in the Amerasia case. 

Mr. Sotjrwine. Are those two separate things, or are they one 
thing in your mind? 

Mr. BissoN. They are separate things. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How did it come to your attention that he was as- 
sociating with Earl Browder? 

Mr, BissoN. To my knowledge, I just learned it from conversation, 
or 

Mr. SouR"wiNE. Conversation with whom, with Jaffe? 

Mr. BissoN. Could have been. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. With Browder ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr, SouRwiNE. It could have been with Jaffe? 

Mr, BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Who else could it have been with? 

Mr, BissoN. No one that I know of, 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Then was it with Jaffe ? 

Mr. BissoN. It may have been ; yes. 

Mr. Sour\\t:ne. If it could have been with Jaffe, it could not have 
been with anyone else? It was with Jaffe, was it not? 

Mr. BissoN. At a later period, yes. 

Mr, Sourwine. You learned of Browder's association with Jaffe, 
from Jaffe? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. _, ^ 

Mr, Sotjrwine. Isidore Schneider? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Frederick Spencer? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouR\viNE. Do you know that Frederick Spencer who signed 
this? 

Mr. BissoN. That's in terms — I say "Yes," 

Mr, SouRwiNE. You know the name Frederick Spencer ? 

Mr, BissoN. I know the name Frederick Spencer. 

Mr. Sourwine. But you do not know the man who signed the same 
Frederick Spencer on here; is that right? 

Mr, BissoN. I do not. 

Mr, Sourwine, Maxwell S. Stewart? 

Mr, BissoN. I know him, and the other answer is "No." 

Mr. Sourwine. You have no reason to believe, or any knowledge 
that he was ever under Communist discipline or ever had voluntarily 
and knowingly cooperated or collaborated with Communist Party 
members in furtherance of Communist Party objectives ? 



4178 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. Katharine Terrell? 

Mr. Btsson. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Harry F. Ward? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And the other two answers to the two questions? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Victor A. YakhontofF^ 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And the answers to the other two questions? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. How was this article prejiared ? Did you prepare it ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember that I had any connection with it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it presented to you for signature ? 

Mr. BissoN. I assume so. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it in a long sheet of paper with a place at the 
bottom for the names to be signed ? 

Mr. BissoN. I cannot recall. 

Mr. Sourwine. You did not sign your name on a piece of paper 
that did not have this writing at the top : did you ? 

Mr. BissoN. I assume not. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you, in fact, sign your name to this article? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. How many names were on it when you signed it ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not recall. 

Mr. Sourwine. Were the names signed one below the other? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not recall. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right, Mr. Chairman. This has been admitted — 
has it not — for the record ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. May I state that this is what year ? 

Senator Ferguson. 1935. 

Mr. BissoN. This is, after all, 17 years ago, and I think I should 
perhaps be pardoned for not knowing every detail. 

Mr. Sourwine. The committee has not criticized you for not re- 
membering. We are only trying to find out what you do remember. 

Mr. Fanelli. You do not have to apologize. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are not being asked to testify to anything 
here that you do not remember. We want your best recollection and 
belief ; what you know. 

Mr. BissoN. I was trying to answer an assumption. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, njay I call attention to this one para- 
graph in this article ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Morris (reading) : 

This direct interference by America in the internal affairs of China has but 
one purpose: the furthering of its imperialist designs at the expense of the 
Chinese people. The proflt-niad munition makers, aeroplane manufacturers, 
industrialists, and bankers, seeking new fields of exploitation for their surplus 
capital, are turning greedy eyes toward war-torn China. 

Mr. Bisson, did you ever speak on a platform with known mem' 
bers of the Communist Party ? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 
Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4179 

Mr. BissoN. I spoke at a meeting in connection with the organiza- 
tion, American Friends of the Chinese People. 

Mr. Morris. When was that ? Can you recall ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not; presumably sometime in the midthirties. 

Mr. Morris. I offer you this issue, November 1934, of China To- 
day, Mr. Bisson, and ask you if you can recall whether or not that 
advertisement of a meeting is the correct one ? 

Mr. BissoN. I assume that that is correct. 

Mr. Morris. They mentioned that the following speakers would 
speak: Mr. T. A. Bisson, Mr. Earl Browder, Mr. Malcolm Cowley, 
General Yakhontoff, Frederick V. Field, and Hansu Chan. 

Did you speak on that occasion ? 

Mr. BissoN. I assume that I did. 

Mr. Morris. You notice that the tickets were sold in two places 
there, at the New Masses and at the Workers' Bookshop, the Workers' 
Bookshop being the official bookshop of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you at the time know that any of those persons 
were members of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. What is that? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. What was the objective of the meeting that you 
were speaking at? 

Mr. BissoN. I think it was to raise funds for the magazine China 
Today. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is that a Communist publication ? 

Mr. BissoN. I would not call that a Communist publication. 

Mr. Sourwine. AVas it Communist-controlled at all? 

Mr. BissoN. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Ferguson. Was it a front ? 

Mr. Bisson. I am not sure of the distinction between Communist- 
controlled and front. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what a Communist- front paper 
is? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not certain in terms of your question at this 
point. 

Senator Ferguson. You cannot answer my question if you do not 
know what it means, if you do not know what a front means. 

Mr. BissoN. I presume you mean an organization which Commu- 
nists control. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, and are using. 

Mr. BissoN. I am not clear on the distinction between front and 
the organization that he spoke of. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was China Today a publication that was in any 
measure controlled or used by the Communist Party ? 

Mr. BissoN. It could have been ; yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it? 

Mr. BissON. I am not sure. 

Mr. Sourwine. You were associated with the magazine? 

Mr. BissoN. I was as.sociated with it. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes. Was it? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not prepared to say that it was fully controlled 
by the Communists. 



4180 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I asked you if it was controlled or used in any way 
by the Communist Party? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. It was not? 

Senator Ferguson. What do you think Earl Browder was doing 
in there if he was not using it ? Do you think Earl Browder was advo- 
cating a capitalist front, speaking to the capitalist movement at this 
meeting and raising the funds? Is that your opinion now? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Then it was a front; was it not? 

Mr. Morris. The tickets were sold by the New Masses and the 
Daily Worker. 

Mr. Fanelli. Let him answer one question. 

Either he knows, or he doesn't know. 

Senator Ferguson. It was a front; was it not? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

I might say that under these circumstances one could consider it a 
front organization. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. SouR^VINE. Would you say that these Communists were there 
to help this meeting for the raising of funds for China Today because 
they wanted to see funds raised for China Today ? 

Mr. Fanelli. I object to that. The only evidence I have heard so 
far was that there was one Communist at that meeting, Earl Browder. 

Mr. Morris. Who was Hansu Chan? 

Mr. BissoN. He was one of the editors of China Today. 

Mr. Morris. Is that a pseudonym ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Wliat is the real name of Hansu Chan ? 

Mr. BissoN. Chi. 

Mr. Morris. Dr. Chi? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. He is an official of Communist China today; is he not? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not certain whether he is an official today. He 
has been reported as such in the last 2 or 3 years. 

Mr. Morris. Would you say that he is a Communist? 

Mr. BissoN. He is a Communist ; yes, today. 

Mr. Morris. So, there we do know that ]Mr. Browder and Mr. Hansu 
Chan are Communists. 

How about Frederick V. Field? Would you consider that he is a 
Connnunist today ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; he would be. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, just so the record could speak freely, 
counsel objected, and I do not know to what extent the Chair is going 
to permit objections by counsel 

Mr. Fanelli. Mr. Sourwine 

' Mr. Sourwine. If you please. I should like to point out that this 
question has been asked before, the question in the plural, if he spoke 
with Communists, and he said "Yes"; and this witness was asked if 
he knew at that time that they were Connnunists, plural, and he said 
"Yes," which seems to me to be adequate foundation for the question 
which I asked. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4181 

Senator Ferguson, I will take the objection merely as a suggestion 
to the Chair to see whether or not in the opinion of the Chair it is 
objectionable. 

Will you repeat or read the question ? 

Mr. Fanelli. Senator, I withdraw my comment. 

Senator Ferguson. I am afraid that the witness does not remember. 

Do you know what the question is? 

Mr. BissoN. I am afraid not. 

Senator Ferguson. Then, we had better have it read. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. In order to lay the necessary foundation -■  

Mr. Fanelli. I withdraw my comment. 

Senator P^erguson. Let us go right ahead. 

Repeat the question. 

Mr. Souravine. Mr. Bisson, is it your understanding that any Com 
numists who were on the platform with you at that meeting were there 
because they wanted to see funds raised for China Today ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And that was why you were there? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Doesn't that mean you were cooperating or col- 
laborating with them? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. And that you were cooperating or collaborating 
with them in furtherance of their objective? 

Mr. BissoN. Objectives which I associated myself with at that time. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yes. And at that time was that not a Communist 
Party objective: to raise funds for China Today? They would not 
have been there if that had not been ; would they? 

Mv. BissoN. I assume it was ; yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Bisson, do you know what was at 50 East 
Thirteenth Street, New York ? 

Mr. BissoN. 50 East Thirteenth Street? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Fergltson. That was the Communist headquarters at that 
time; was it? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not know. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether the Workers Bookshop 
was a Communist shop ? 

Mr. BissoN. I assume that it was. I do not know that shop. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know what the New Masses was? 
Was that a Communist front ? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. So, the tickets for sale were sold at a Comminiist 
front, the New IMasses, ?>! East Twenty-seventh Street, and the other 
place was at the Workers Bookshop, 50 East Thirteenth Street ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. At least one of the places was a Communist- 
front place? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. We will put the whole ad in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 714'' and is 
as follows:) 



4182 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Exhibit No. 714 

[ Advortisenicnt in China Today, November 1934. p. SO | 

BANQUET AND DANCE 

Celebrate the appearance of 

China Today 

and hear the following speakers 

T. A. BissoN Gen. Yakhontoff 

Earl Browder Frederick V. Field 

Malcolm Cowley Hansu Chan 

and enjoy 

Native Chinese Food (Served Chinese Style) 

Dance to the music of the well-known 

Clui! Valhalla Orchestra 

Saturday, November 10th — Irving Plaza, 15th Street & Irving IMace, New York 
$1.25 for Banquet and Dance Reservations in advance only. Service at 6 : 30 

sharp. 

50^ Dance ticket entitles you to hear speakers at 8 : 80 — 65^^ at the door. 

Tickets for sale at New Masses, 81 East 27th Street ; Worker Bookshop, 50 

E. 13 Street, or at our Headquarters 

Auspices 

Friends of the Chinese People 

168 West 23rd St. Chelsea 2-9096 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, when you were working in General Mac- 
Arthnr's headquarters, and when you were working for the United 
kStates strategic bomb survey, did you make disclosure to your author- 
ities that you had these Communist associations in the past? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. By "authorities," you mean superiors, Mr. Morris? 

Mr. Morris. That is right. Your superiors and the people with 
whom you made application for employment? 

Mr. Fanelli. The answer is "yes'' or "no"' to them. Tell them you 
did or didn't. 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you mention that you had written for this Com- 
munist publication, China Today, under a pseudonym '. 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you mention that you had spoken on the same 
platform with Frederick V. Field, Hansu Chan, and Earl Browder? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you think that they w'ould have reposed confidence 
in you if you had? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not know\ 

Mr. Morris. While you were in Tokyo, Mr. Bisson, did you ever 
meet with Mr. Philip Keeney? 

Mr. Faneei.i. In connection with the last question just asked, he 
has some documents he would like to introduce. Do you want them 
now? 

Senator Fp:rguson. Answer the question. Then we will get to the 
documents. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4183 

Mr. Morris. How often did you meet with Mr. Keeney in Tokyo? 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Keeney was a member of occupation lieadquarters. 
He was livin*:; in the same hotel with me. I saw him a lunnber of 
times a week. 

Mr. Morris. Woukl 30U say that you were on very close terms with 
Philip O. Keeney^ 

Mr. Bissox. I would not. 

Mr. Morris. You did, however, meet him two or three times a week? 

Mr, BissoN. We were working!: in different sections. He was in the 
educational work. 

Mr. Morris. But even though you were working in different kinds 
of work, you did meet him two or three times a week, did you not? 

Mr. BissoN. We were living in the same hotel and dining in the 
same hotel. Therefore, I met him several times a week. I would not 
know whether they were twice a week or six times a week. 

Mr. Morris. He was a friend of yours, was he not, Mr. Bisson? 

Mr. Bissox. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. And you had known him before he Avent out to Japan, 
had you not? 

Mr. BissoN. No. I met him first in Japan. 

Mr. Morris. You were then subsequently associated with him in the 
Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy; were you not? 

Mr. Bissox. I was. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that he was disqualified from service in 
the Far East command? 

Mr. Bissox. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know the reason for his disqualification ? 

Mr. Bissox. To the best of my knowledge he could not find out 
when he was there. 

Mr. SouRWiXE. The question was : Did you know ? 

Mr. Morris. Did you know why he was disqualified ? 

Mr. Bissox. I did not. 

Mr. Morris. And that did not interfere with your decision of be- 
coming associated with him — he was treasurer, was he not, of the 
Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy — and that did not 
interfere with your becoming associated with him in the Committee 
for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy when you returned to the United 
States? 

Mr. Bissox. It did not. 

Mr. SouRwiXE. Did you ever know or have reason to believe that 
he was under Communist discipline or had voluntarily and knowingly 
cooperated or collaborated with Communist Party members in fur- 
therance of Communist Party objectives? 

Mr. Bissox. I did not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Mr. Susumo Okano ? Did you ever 
meet Mr. Susumo Okano in Japan ? 

Mr. Bissox. Yes ; I think I did. 

Mr. Morris. He was an ofticial of the Japanese Communist Party, 
was he not ? 

Mr. Bissox. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. In fact, he was the leader of the Japanese CommunLst 
Party? 

Mr, Bissox. He is. 



4184 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Did you clioose to describe him as a Japanese liberal 
Avho should be included in the Japanese Government? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember of describing him as a liberal. I 
may well have described him as one wlio could enter the Japanese 
Government. 

Mr. Morris. I have now your article, which appears in Pacific Af- 
fairs of 1944, September 1944, in which you say, among other things, 
here : 

There are many such liberals, including Takao Saito, expelled from the House 
of Representatives for denouncing the war against China ; Kan.iu Kato, jailed 
for his aggressive and uncompromising trade-union leadership ; Daikichiro 
Togawa, member imprisoned for susi3ected opposition to the war in China ; 
Wataru Kaji, who has for years aided the Chinese armies in propaganda work ; 
Tatsukichi Minobe, eminent constitutional lawyer driven from the House of 
Peers for his liberal views on the Emperor ; Susumo Okano, Communist leader of 
the Japanese Peoples' Liberation Alliance, organized February 1944 in Yenan, 
China ; Baroness Ishimoto — 

and so forth. 

Did 3^ou advocate that Susumo Okano listed among those other 
peo])le as liberal by you be included in the Japanese Government? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Many I make a comment on that ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes. You wanted to introduce something into the 
record at this time ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. We have been discussing my Government con- 
nections in Japan and I should like to speak both to 

Senator Fi:rgusox. Before you go into that, I would just like to 
inquire from Mr. Morris how long he thinks this hearing will take. 

Mr. BissoN. I think I can finish this in 2 or 3 minutes. 

Senator Ferguson. It appears that we cannot finish today and we 
can finish in about an hour and a half, so we have a full meeting on 
Monday at 10 : 30, and, tlierefore, we will start this hearing sharply 
at 9 o'clock Monday morning. 

We will recess now until 9 o'clock Monday morning. 

If you do not finish at 10 : 30 when the committee comes in as a 
whole, you have another meeting at 2, do you not? We have another 
meeting at 2? 

Mr. Morris. We have another meeting and anotlier witness sub- 
penaed. 

Senator Ferguson. If there is any question we could start this one at 
1 o'clock to finish it, so we Avould have 2i/2 hours. 

Mr. Sour WINE. Do you want to get this material in he is offering? 

Mr. Fanelli, It won't take a minute, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. 

Mr. BissoN. I want to note that Major General Willoughby, former 
liead of G-2 in occupation lieadquarters at Tokyo, has charged before 
the committee that I was among certain people "unloaded" on head- 
quarters from the States in the spring of 1946. 

The fact is that the Deputy Chief of Government Section, Col. 
Charles L. Kades, invited me to join that section in the fall of 1945, 
when I was in Japan with the strategic bombing survey. 

My commitments with tlie survey did not permit me to accept the 
offer at that time. By the spring of 1946 I had fulfilled tliese com- 
mitments, including the writing of one of the cliapters in the official 
survey volume prepared by the Over-all Fconomic Effects Division, 
to which I was attached. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4185 

From the War Department I received later an official scroll of 
commendation for my contribution to the work of the strategic bomb- 
ing survey. 

Having completed my work with the survey, I took up the offer 
previously made by Government Section in Tokyo, stipulating that 
I stay only 4 months, and that my status be raised from the grade 
of P-T to P-8, the highest professional category. 

These matters are all subject of record and can be easily verified 
by investigation. It was under these conditions, which do not take 
on the character of being "unloaded" on occupation headquarters, 
that I assumed my duties with Government Section in April 1946. 

With regard to my period of official service with occupation head- 
quarters in 19-1:6— tT,' the appropriate source to consult is my immedi- 
ate superior, Brig. Gen. (later Maj. Gen.) Courtney Whitney, Chief 
of Government Section. He gave me a letter of commendation when 
I left the field. 

Under the urgings of my official superiors in Government Section, 
I extended the stipulated term of 4 months to 13 months. 

The letter he gave me reads as follows 

Senator Ferguson. Just offer it and we will put it in the record. 

Mr. Fanelli. That is right. 

Mr. Morris. Did you disclose to any of these people that you men- 
i ioned, Mr. Bisson, your past Communist associations ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. I will receive that commendation letter in the 
record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 715'' and is as 

follows:) 

Exhibit No. 715 

General Headquarters, 
Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, 

Tokyo, Japan, May 8, 19Iil'. 
Mr. T. A. Bisson, 

Tokyo, Japan 
Dear Mr. Bisson : It is with a sense of sincere regret tliat I note your departure 
from your post here for the United States. I have, however, realized for some 
time that your personal affairs reciuired your presence at home, and that you 
were staying during the national and local elections at my request only at con- 
siderable personal sacrifice. 

As special assistant to the Chief, Government Section, since early in 1946, 
you have devoted yourself indefatigably to the democratization of Japan. The 
advice and untiring assistance which you gave in the preparation of legislative 
programs during the several sessions of the National Diet contributed materially 
to the successful formulation and adoption of laws of a progressive and en- 
lightened character fvilly in keeping with the liberal spirit of the new Constitution 
of Japan. 

Nor can I commend too highly the vision and judgment which you exhibited 
in the development of plans for the deconcentration of political and economic 
power in Japan and the establishment of a social pattern in which a system of 
private enterprise may function free from monopolistic influences and totali- 
tarian controls. In fact, the zeal, patience, and initiative with which you per- 
formed your manifold day-to-day duties have won the deep respect and admiration 
of all your colleagues in this headquarters, as well as my own gratitude and 
appreciation. We will all miss you. 

With best wishes for your continued success, I am, 
Very sincerely, 

(Signed) Courtney Whitney, 
Brigadier General, United States Army, 

Chief, Oovernment Section. 



4186 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. We will recess now, until 9 o'clock on Monday 
morning. 

(Thereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at D a. m. Monday, March ;31, 1952.) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



MONDAY, MARCH 31, 1952 
United States Senate, 

Sl'BC'oMMlTTEE 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, pursuant to recess, at 9 a. m., in room 424, 
Senate Office Building:, Hon. Homer Ferguson, presiding. 

Present : Senators McCarran, Eastland, and Ferguson. 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, committee counsel; Robert Morris, 
subcommittee counsel; and Benjamin Mandel, director or research. 

Senator Ferguson. Come to order. 

You may proceed, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you put into the record the citation 
of the American Friends of the Chinese People? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a correction of the previous statement. 

The American Friends of the Chinese People, which was the organi- 
zation that sponso>"^d China Today, was cited as a Communist front 
by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of 
Representatives in its report of March 29, 1944, pages 40 and 147. It 
was not in existence at the time the Attorney General's list was promul- 
gated. That is why it is not on his list. 

Senator Ferguson. You mean it had passed out of existence? 

Mr. Mandel. It had ceased existing at the time the Attorney Gen- 
eral's list was put out. 

Mr. Sourwine. You don't actually know why it wasn't on the At- 
torney General's list; do you? 

Mr. Mandel. I know only that the organization did not exist at 
the time the first Attorney General's list was put out. 

Mr. Fanelli. I think it ought to be noted the Attorney General's 
list has many organizations that are out of existence such as the 
American League for Peace and Democracy. That is just for vour 
information, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS ARTHUR BISSON, BERKELEY, CALIF. 
ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH A. FANELLI, ESQ. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, have you written in justification of the 
Soviet-German Pact ? 

Mr. BissoN. I have not, so far as I know. 

Mr. P'anelli. He has one correction in his testimony of Saturday 
at any point where it is convenient. 

4187 



4188 - INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson, Do it now, 

Mr. BissoN. My position of mascot of Pacific Affairs was associate 
editor, not acting editor. Tlie same is true for Michael Greenberg. 
In these years, Mr, Holland or Mr. Carter ^vas the editor, "What I 
wanted to indicate here is that I did not have editorial responsibility 
at the time, as this mastiiead shows. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How did the masthead read, "associate editor?" 

Mr, BissoN. Associate editor ; yes, 

Mr, SouRwixE. Did yon perform the duties that an editor would 
normally perform? 

Mr. BissoN. I performed on occasion routine editorial administra- 
tion, I did not have editorial responsibility, 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Who decided what was going into the magazine? 

Mr, BissoN, Mr, Carter when he was editor or Mr. Holland, 

Mr. SouRwiNE, Mr. Carter, himself, personally submitted manu- 
scripts and decided what to reject and accept? 

Mr. BissoN. Sometimes we had editorial sessions in which the whole 
group of editors would meet. There would be discussions there. The 
final decision in those discussions always lay with Mr, Carter, 

Mr, SouRWiNE, Did you make recommendations to him ? 

Mr. BissoN, We all made recommendations, depending on what we 
felt about all of this, 

Mr, SouRw^iNE. Were you the top man on the publication except for 
Mr, Carter? 

Mr. BissoN. May I see the masthead of the Pacific Affairs? 

Mr, SouRwiXE. From your memory, not from the masthead, 

Mr. BissoN, Mr. Belshaw was there, 

Mr, SouRW^iNE. AVas there someone over you except Mr, Carter? 

Mr, BissoN. I would like to see the masthead, 

Mr, SouRwiNE. What do you remember ? 

Mr, BissoN. My memory is "No," 

Mr. Morris, I want to refresh the witness' recollection by referring 
to our exhibit Xo. 71, which appears on page 307 of the public tran- 
script. This is a letter from Wilma Fairbank to you dated October 19, 
1943. Wilma Fairbanks writes : 

Dear Akt : Harriet writes me that Chien Tuan-Sheiig's article on local govern- 
ment is going to be published in the December issue of Pacific Affairs. I under- 
stand that you are now acting editor. 

Mr. BissoN. "I understand" — she wasn't certain, I think that is 
quite clear and what she is saying is that she thinks I am the editor 
and w^ould like me to take this into consideration. She wasn't certain. 
That would be my interpretation of it, 

I assure you the point here is whether an article should go in or not 
and that was up to Mr, Carter, 

Mr, Faneeli. You have answered the question, 

Mr, Morris, Mr, Chairman, in connection with the question put to 
the witness, "Did you support the Hitler-Stalin Pact?" I w^ould like 
to introduce into the record an article that appeared in Amerasia of 
September 1938, signed "TAB," which is entitled "Japan Picks Up the 
Pieces," 

Senator Ferguson, Is that your article? 

Mr, BissoN. That is my article. 

Mr, Fanelli. Let me see it, please, 

Mr, Morris, I will show you this next article in order to save time. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4189 

Senator Ferguson. What do you say about that article? 
Mr. Bissox. I have not had a chance to complete reading it yet. 
Mr. SouRWiNE. Why haven't you had a chance to complete read- 
ing iti' 

Mr. Bissox. I would like to have my counsel read this. 
Mr. SouRAviNE. Does Mr. Fanelli know whether you wrote this? 
Mr. Faxelli. I would like to know what he has been asked and is 
being asked. 

Senator Ferguson. We are trying to find his knowledge. 
Mr. BissoN. I have said I wrote it. 
Mr. SouRwiNE. That is the answer we are waiting for. 
Mr. Morris. I now offer you this article from Soviet Russia Today. 
Mr. Fanelli. Senator, I have no objection to its being in the record, 
but it doesn't show any support of the Russian-China Pact. 
Senator Ferguson. It will speak for itself. 

Mr. Morris. I offer you the May 1941 issue of China Today and on 
l>age 5 is an article entitled "The Soviet-Japanese Pact in Historical 
Perspective," by T. A. Bisson. I ask you if you wrote that. 
Mr. BissoN. I wrote that article. 
May I look at it in more detail ? 
Mr. Morris. Yes. 

Mr. Fanelli. Would you mind waiting a minute while I read it, 
if you are going to ask him about this? 

Mr. Morris. Counsel has asked permission to read the article, Mr. 
Chairman. 
Mr. SouRwiNE. How long is the article ? 

Mr. Fanelli. Two pages. It will take me 2 minutes. I have not 
previously seen this article. I take it he is going to ask about its 
contents. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you plan to ask Mr. Fanelli any questions ? 
Mr. Morris. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Why should counsel read it ? 
Mr. Morris. I have no reason. 

Senator Ferguson. It is what the witness knows about it, not 
counsel, unless there is some constitutional question in it, or legal 
questions that you do not want to answer on the ground that it would 
tend to incriminate you. 

Mr. BissoN. May I consult with counsel? If so, I think it would 
be necessary for him to read it. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you identify it as an article you have written ? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. How long have you known counsel ? 
Mr. BissoN. About a week. 

Senator Ferguson. Who introduced you to your counsel ? 
Mr. BissoN. Mr, Maxwell Stewart. 

Senator Ferguson. How long have you been in Washington now ? 
Mr. BissoN. Since Friday night ? 
Senator Ferguson. Last Friday night? 
Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you first meet your counsel? You 
said about a week. 
Mr. BissoN. Half a week. 
Senator Ferguson. A half a week ? 

88348— 52— pt. 12 11 



4190 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr, BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you meet your counsel ? 

Mr. Bissox. I first met my counsel Friday night. 

Senator Ferguson. Who took you to meet your counsel ? 

Mr. BissoN. I went by myself. 

Senator Ferguson. Nobody with you ? 

Mr. BissoN. Nobody was with me. 

Senator Ferguson. AVas he in his office or in his home ? 

Mr. BissoN. He Avas at his office. 

Senator Ferguson. You said that Maxwell Stewart introduced you 
to your counsel. 

Mr. BissoN. By introduced, I took to mean, got me in touch with 
him. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you contact Mr. Maxwell Stewart 
about counsel? 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Stewart telephoned me in Berkeley, Calif. 

Senator Ferguson. He telej)honed you, or did you telephone him ? 

Mr. BissoN. He telephoned to me. 

Senator Ferguson. Had you been in contact with Maxwell Stewart 
before ? 

Mr. BissoN. I had not. 

Senator Ferguson. Who is Maxwell Stewart ? 

Mr. BissoN. You mean in terms of his business position? 

Senator Ferguson. What is his business? 

Mr. BissoN. I think he is head of a public affairs committee, puts 
out some pamphlets. 

Senator Ferguson. He is the head of a public affairs committee 
tliat puts out pamphlets. What kind of pamphlets? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not sufficiently aware of the type of ])amphlets. 

Senator Ferguson. How long have you known Maxwell Stewart? 

Mr. BissoN. I have known Maxwell Stewart 15 — 20 years, a long 
time. 

Senator Ferguson. Was he ever on the Institute of Pacific Relations 
with you ? 

Mr. BissoN. He was not, not that I know of. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he ever work in (Tovernment? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not think so. 

Senator Ferguson. When did Maxwell Stewart get in touch with 
you? 

Mr. BissoN. You mean tlie telephone call to which I referred? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. When was that? 

Mr. BissoN. To the best of my knowledge it was Wednesday. 

Senator Ferguson. Last Wednesday, Maxwell Stewart called you 
in California? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Fer(;us()n. Wlien were you subpenaed? 

Mr. BrssoN. Tlie telegram arrived on Tuesday, I think. 

Senator Ferguson. The telegram arrived on Tuesday of last week 
saying that j'ou were to come here ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. And Maxwell Stewart called you on Wednes- 
day ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4191 

Senator E'erguson. What was your cjonversation with Maxwell 

Stew^art ? 

Mr. Bissox. Maxwell Stewart said that he understood I was to tes- 
tify here in Washington. 

Senator Ferguson. He understood you were going to testify here m 
Washington, and what else? 

Mr. BissoN. And suggested if I needed a lawyer he could recom- 
mend one. 

Senator Ferguson. What else? 

Mr. BissoN. Then he gave me his telephone number. 

Senator Ferguson. Maxwell Stewart's telephone number? 

Mr. BissoN. No ; Mr. Fanelli's telephone number. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you tell him you wanted a lawyer? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. You realize that many witnesses have appeared 
without lawyers ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not so realize. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever know a witness in a court case to 
have a lawyer? Have you ever appeared as a witness in a court case? 

Mr. BissoN. I have not. I am rather inexperienced in legal matters. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever attended a court trial? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know as I actually have. 

Senator Ferguson. You don't think you have? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever known a witness to have a lawyer 

before ? 

Mr. BissoN. I just wouldn't know the answer to that question. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that the only conversation you had with Max- 
well Stewart? You are under oath, you understand. 

Mr. BissoN. No ; that is not the only conversation. 

Senator Ferguson. Tell us what the conversation was that you had 
with Maxwell Stewart. I have been trying to get it. 

Mr. BissoN. I also had a conversation with Maxwell Stewart in 
New York. 

Senator Ferguson. When? 

Mr. BissoN. Friday. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you go to New York and meet Maxwell 
Stewart? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. Where did you meet him in New York? 

Mr. BissoN. I met him at his offices. 

Senator Ferguson. He has an office in New York? 

Mr. BissoN. He has. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he telephone you from Washington or tele- 
phone you from New York ? 

Mr. BissoN. He did not telephone me. 

Senator Ferguson. What ? 

Mr. BissoN. Oh, you mean on the day that w^e are now speaking of, 
or earlier ? 

Senator Ferguson. Now you told me that he telephoned you last 
Wednesday. 

Mr. BissoN. But we are now speaking about Friday, and I am ask- 
ing you whether you are speaking of Friday or Wednesday. 



4192 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. I am talkiiif^ about your first telephone call 
from Maxwell Stewart. 

Mr. BissoN. That is exactly what I was not clear about. Now I 
am clear about it. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you have your first call from Max- 
well Stewart? 

Mr. BissoN. On Wednesday afternoon. 

Senator Ferguson. From where? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know as he exactly stated. I presume he was 
in New York City. 

Senator Ferguson. You presume he was. You were where? 

Mr. BissoN. In Berkeley. 

Senator Ferguson. How lonjr did the telephone call take? 

Mr. BissoN. I suppose 3 or 4 minutes. 

Senator Ferguson. What did you say to him? What did he say 
to you ? 

Mr. BissoN. I have told you what we said. 

Senator Ferguson. Is tluit tlie only conversation? He said: "You 
are ^oing to be subpenaed ?" 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. "You are going to be subpenaed?" 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Fergi^son. "Do you want a lawyer?" 

Mr. BissoN. He asked me whether I needed a lawyer. 

Senator Ferguson. What did you say? 

Mr. BissoN. I said I did not have one and I would like to have 
one. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he name the lawyer? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he tell you who would pay for the lawyer? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ask him ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Was there anything said about paying the 
lawyer ? 

Mr. BissoN. There was not. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you a contract now to ])ay your lawyer? 

Mr. BissoN. I have. 

Senator Ferguson. How much ? 

Mr. BissoN. $250. 

Senator Ferguson. For what, for a day ? 

Mr. BissoN. For a day. 

Senator Ferguson. A day? 

Mr. Bisson. No, $250. 

Senator Ferguson. For the whole ap])earance? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. This was originally understood to be only a 
day's appearance. 

Senator Ferguson. It was to be $250. Were you to pay it per- 
sonally? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you pay any down? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you make an appointment with Stev^art? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4193 

Senator Ferguson. How did you get to New York to see him if 
3'ou did not make an appointment ? 

Mr. BissON. I went down to New York City to see liim. 

Senator Ferguson. You told us tlie conversation on Wednesday 
and there is nothing in it about you going to New York. 

Mr. BissoN. There is nothing to prevent me from going to New 
York when I got here in Washington, is there? 

Senator Ferguson. Not a thing. 

Mr. BissoN. That is exactly what I did. 

Senator Ferguson. You came to Washington when? 

Mr. BissoN. I came to Washington on Friday morning. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you go to see your counsel? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Where did you go in Washington ? 

Mr. BissON. I did not go anywhere in Washington. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you get off the train or plane? 

Mr. BissoN. I was on a plane. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you get off the plane? 

Mr. BissoN. I got off the plane, asked whether I could purchase 
an extension to New York, and returned to the plane. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you do that ? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you contact anybody while you were here 
in Washington? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. I merely had time to make the shift. 

Senator Ferguson. Why did you change your mind about going on 
to New York? 

Mr. BissoN. I didn't change my mind. The Government TR called 
for a San Francisco to Washington trip. I could not change that. 
What I could do was to extend it on my own funds. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you have another conversation on the tele- 
phone with Maxwell Stewart? 
Mr. BissoN. No; I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Where were you to meet Maxwell Stewart ? 
Mr. BissoN. I was not. We made no arrangements to meet. 
Senator Ferguson. Then you went on to New York? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know where Maxwell Stewart's office 
was in New York ? 
Mr. BissoN. I did not know the exact address. 
Senator Ferguson. Did you go on to New York ? 
Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you see Maxwell Stewart? 
Mr. BissON. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. Who else did you see in New York? 
Mr. BissoN. I saw Mr. Holland. ' 
Senator Ferguson. You saw Mr. Holland ? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you see anybody else? 
Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Is Maxwell Stewart a lawyer f 
Mr. BissoN. No; not as far as I know. 
Senator Ferguson. He is a public-relations man? 
Mr. BissoN. I would not call him a public-relations man. 



4194 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. What is on his office door? 

Mr. BissoN. Public Affairs Committee. 

Senator Fekgusox. Connnittee for what? 

Mr. BissoN. The committee publislies pamphlets. It does not nec- 
essarily mean — I do not think he operates for any person as a public 
relations expert in terms of his business. 

Senator Ferguson. What kind of pamphlets does he publish? 
Wliat are the pamphlets? 

Mr. BissoN. I have not seen them for many years. They are small 
pamphlets, something of this size, a little largei', various subjects, 
most of which I think are domestic. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you go to see Stewart before you went to 
see Holland? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Senator Ferguson. You went to see Stewart first? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. You didn't have an appointment with him? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. You are sure about that ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. He is my friend. 

Senator Ferguson. What was vour conversation with Stewart 
{ibout? 

Mr. BissoN. It resolved generally around the procedures in a com- 
mittee hearing of this kind with hints to help me out in conducting 
myself. 

Senator Ferguson. How to conduct yourself? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. What did he tell you about that? 

Mr. BissoN. Well, there are a number of points we discussed. I 
suppose I can remember some of them. 

One was to try to keep cool. Another was to make sure you knew 
the question before you attempted to answer it. Another Avas to look 
at a document that was read to you. 

Senator Ferguson. Look at it wlien it was read to you ? 

Mr. BissoN. If I am not familiar with its contents. 

Senator Ferguson. To have your counsel read the document also ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he tell you that? 

Mr. BissoN. No, he did not say that. Just to make sure that I had 
the content of a document on which I was being questioned if my 
memory was not complete about it. 

I do not remember any other details. He thought we should — it 
was almost lunch time then — go out for lunch. 

Senator Ferguson. How long did you talk with Maxwell Stewart? 

Mr. BissoN. I suppose it was 15 or 20 minutes. We then telephoned 
Mr. Holland and made a luncheon appointment with him. 

Senator Ferguson. You and Stewart went to Holland? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. And had luncheon with Holland? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Fergus'on. What did you talk about there? 

Mr. BissoN. In general, the same problems. 

Senator Ferguson. How to conduct yourself before a connnittee ? 

Mr. Bisson. That is right. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4195 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk about Owen Lattimore's testi- 
mony ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Was his name mentioned? 

Mr. Bissox. I don't believe it was. 

Senator Ferguson. Think a mimite. 

Mr. BissoN. To the best of my knowledo;e, his name was not even 
mentioned. 

Senator Ferguson. Did Mr. Stewart say that he had talked to 
counsel, that the counsel would take your case? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. I think he said that he had talked to Mr. Fanelli. 

Senator Ferguson. And Mr. P'anelli would take your case? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he tell you that Mr. Fanelli had any ex- 
perience in this particular case? 

Mr. BissoN. That is, my case? 

Senator Ferguson. No, in the IPR case. 

Mr. BissoN. No; I don't think so, except that he told me he had 
l)een Ids lawyer here when he was here. 

Senator Ferguson. And Mr. Fanelli had represented Mr. Maxwell 
Stewart as a witness before the committee ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is rifrht. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you knew ]\Iaxwell Stewart had been a 
witness here? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Fercjuson. Did he tell you as to whether Mr. Fanelli had 
represented anybody else before the committee? 

Mr. BissoN. He did not. 

Senator Ferguson. That he had gotten other people to go to Mr. 
Fanelli to have Mr. Fanelli as a lawyer before this committee? 

Mr. BissoN. He did not. We did not discuss any of that. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you discuss Mr. Budenz ? 

Mr. BissoN. We did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Was he mentioned? 

Mr. BissON. Not that I remember. 

Senator Ferguson, Did he tell you that Mr. Fanelli was the man 
who had given certain evidence to the attorney for Mr. Lattimore? 

Mr. BissoN. He did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Didn't he tell you that? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did he tell you that Mr. Fanelli had given evi- 
dence to ^Ir. Fortas, Abe Fortas? 

Mr. Bissox. He did not. 

Senator P'erguson. Was the name of Abe Fortas mentioned? 

Mr. BissoN. It was not. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you talk about any deportation cases? 

Mr. BissoN. AVe did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Have we got about your conversation with Hol- 
land? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Were any of these documents mentioned? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. How long was your conversation with Holland? 



4196 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr, BissoN. There was no separate conversation with Holland. It, 
was a general conversation in the office and then we had lunch. As a 
matter of fact, as I remember, hnally only ]Mr. Stewart and I went 
to lunch. 

Senator Ferguson. Holland did not go with you? 

Mr. BissoN. Holland finally did not go to lunch. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you and Stewart went over to Holland's 
office ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. How long a time did you spend there? 

Mr. BissoN. I would estimate a half or three-quarters of an hour. 

Senator Ferguson. You were about three-quarters of an hour at 
Holland's office? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Who suggested getting Holland? 

Mr. BissoN, I expect I said that, since Mr. Holland is acting as head 
of the IPE, it would probably ])e well if I saw him. 

Senator Ferguson. Who called Holland? 

Mr.. BissoN. Maxwell Stewart did. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you went to lunch with Stewart? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Could you give us the conversation? 

Mr. BissoN. I am afraid I don't recall any of the details. We 
passed on to general subjects then. We were discussing family mat- 
ters, my son's position, and so on. 

Senator Ferguson. What is that ? 

Mr. BissoN. We had certain matters to deal with with reference 
to my son, and I asked him about his family. We were discussing 
mainl}^ family matters over lunch. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you call the lawyer — he was not your lawyer 
then, because you had not talked to him 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did Stewart call him? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Did anybody call him? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Hoav did you know you were goiug to meet him 
Friday? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not know I was going to meet him Friday. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you leave New York? 

Mr. BissoN. I left New York right after lunch. 

Senator Ferguson. What time? 

Mr. BissoN. On the 1 : 30 train. 

Senator Ferguson. You arrived here at what time? 

Mr. BissoN. I think it was around 5 o'clock. 

Senator Ferguson. Where did you go then? 

Mr. BissoN. I went to my hotel. 

Senator Ferguson. Where ? 

Mr. BissoN. Hotel Stratford. 

Senator Ferguson. Then where ? 

Mr. BissoN. I then telephoned Mr. Haaser. 

Senator Ferguson. Who is Mr. Haaser? 

Mr. BissoN. I was directed to telephone him when I arrived. 

Senator Ferguson. By whom ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4197 

Mr. BissoN. Who directed me to do that? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. The telegram here. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you get him on the phone? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Then what? 

Mr. BissoN. I reported I had arrived. He said the hearing was 
scheduled for 

Senator Ferguson. About what time was that ? 

Mr. BissoN. I suppose that must have been about 5 : 30, a quarter 
of 6. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you had not contacted the lawyer yet? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you contact him ? 

Mr. BissoN. I made a telephone call to him after that. 

Senator Ferguson. You had his number because Maxwell Stewart 
gave it to you ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Was he at his office? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; he was at his office. 

Senator Ferguson. You went to the office ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you appeared Saturday morning? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you have some questions, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Just one or two. 

What time did your plane get into W^ashington Friday morning? 

Mr. BissoN. I think it was about 9 o'clock. I am not exactly certain. 

Mr. Sourwine. What time did you take off for New York? 

Mr. BissoN. I think it was about a half an hour. 

Mr. Sourwine. That would be about 9 : 30 that the plane took off 
for New York ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. What time did you get to New York ? 

Mr. BissoN. As I remember, the flight took about an hour or a little 
over. 

Mr. Sourwine. You got into LaGuardia Field? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. Sourwine. That would be about 10 : 30 or a little later ? 

Mr. BissoN. 10 : 30 or a quarter to 11. 

Mr. Sourwine. What time did you get into ISIanhattan? 

Mr. BissoN. I had to wait for' the bags. I went in the limousine. 
I suppose it was 11 o'clock or 11 : 15. 

Mr. Sourwine. Where did you get off? Where did the limousine 
leave you? 

Mr. BissoN. As I remember, I got off at the uptown stop. 

Mr. Sourwine. Where was that ? 

Mr. BissoN. I wouldn't remember the exact street. It was around 
Fifty-seventh Street, something like that. 

Mr. Sourwine. Fifty-seventh and what? 

Mr. BissoN. Lexington. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then what did you do? 

Mr. BissoN. My problem was I did not know where to get off the 
limousine because I did not know the address of Mr. Stewart's office. 



4198 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRWiNE. This is around a quarter to 12 ? 

Mr. BissoN. No ; this is a quarter after 11. 

So I went into a drug store or something, and looked at a telephone 
book, and found his address and got a taxicab and went to his office. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. How is he listed in the telephone book? 

Mr. BissoN. I think I looked up Public Affairs Committee. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. In the Manhattan telephone directory ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Where is the office ? 

Mr, BissoN. The office — I am not exactly certain. It is down 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Where did you go ? 

Mr. BissoN. It was about 20 blocks downtown, I think, a little 
below Forty-second Street, around Fortieth Street. 

Mr. Sour WINE. Fortieth and what? 

Mr. BissoN. That is what I was trying to remember. I think it 
is on the east side of Fifth Avenue a couple of blocks. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. That is all you can remember about it ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRW^NE. You don't know the name of the building? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does it have a name ? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You went there in a cab ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You got there when? About 11 : 30? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You just walked in on him unannounced? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And he was there? 

Mr. BissoN, That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You talked with him for a while? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr SouRWiNE. Then one of you suggested calling Mr. Holland ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You think it was you ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Then Mr. Stewart did call Mr. Holland? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. He found him in? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know whether Mr. Stewart had talked to 
Mr. Holland before about your coming? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not think so. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You don't know? 

Mr. Bissox. I don't know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Had you made any contact with Mr. Holland by 
mail or otherwise to let him know yf)u were coming? 

Mr, BissoN. I had not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. So you went over to Mr. Holland's, you and Mr. 
Stewart? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr, SouRWiNE. In a cab? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4199 

Mr. SouRWiNE. What time did you leave to go to Mr. Holland's 
office? 

Mr. BissoN. I think we must have got to Mr. Holland's office about 
12 o'clock. It may have been a little before or after. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you get right in to see him ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; I think so. 

Mr. SouRwixE. You talked with him for about how long ? 

Mr. Bissox. Well, our talk was interrupted. Mr. Shannon McCune 
came in. Maybe we talked for 10 or 15 minutes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Mr. who? 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Shannon McCune. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Do you know him? 

Mr. BissoN". I know him to some extent. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Is he with IPR? 

Mr. Bissox. No. 

Mr. SouRwixE. What does he do ? 

Mr. Bissox. I think he is a university teacher up in New York 
State somewhere, Syracuse, or something. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What was he doing there ? Do you know ? 

Mr. BissoN. He just happened to come into the office at that time. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You talked with him for about 15 minutes in the 
group ? 

Mr. BissoN. No; he came in, he talked to Mr. Holland. Maxwell 
Stewart and I were on the side. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That was an interruption ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. . 

Mr. SoTJRWiNE. Then you talked with Mr. Holland altogether about 
15 minutes? 

Mr. Bissox. I would say about that. 

Mr. SouRWiXE. Then you went to lunch ? 

Mr. Bissox. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiXE. Did you ask Mr. Holland to go to lunch with you ? 

Mr. Bissox. I think lie said he had another engagement. 

Mr. SouRwixE. Did you ask him to go with you ? 

Mr. Bissox. No. We were going out to lunch, but he had another 
engagement. 

Mr. SouRwixE. So it was then about 12: 15; is that right? 

Mr. Bissox. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiXE. You went out to lunch ? 

Mr. Bissox. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiXE. Did you eat near the office building there? 

Mr. Bissox. No. We decided we didn't have too much time and 
we went down to the Pennsylvania Station eating house, I think one 
of the Savarin's there. 

Mr. SouRwiXE. Did you take a cab down there? 

Mr. Bissox. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwixE. You were taking your bags with you ? 

IVIr. Bissox. We went down in the subway. 

Mr. SouRwixE. You were taking your bags with you from place 
to place? 

IVIr. Bissox. Yes. The reason we did that was that it was quicker 
and very convenient from 1 East Fifty-fourth Street. You get on 
the subway there. 



4200 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SoTJKWiNE. Were you at 1 East Fifty-fourth Street? 

Mr. Fanelij. I didn't hear the question. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Nobody asked you what you heard. 

Mr. Fanelu. I am. entitled to know the questions. I just didn't 
hear that. He had his hand over his mouth. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Mr. Fanelli has repeatedly interrupted here. This 
time he has interrupted at a very important point in the examination. 

Were you at 1 East Fifty-fourth Street? 

Mr. Bissoisr. We w^ere at Mr. Holland's office. That is the address. 

Mr. Fanelli. I wull object to "repeated interruptions." I have 
not made repeated interruptions. 

Senator Ferguson, The record will speak for itself. 

Mr. Faneli.i. I know. He need not describe it that w^ay. It is 
not true. 

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You took the subway down to the Pennsylvania 
Station ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You ate at the Savarin ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Just the two of you ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Then you got on the 1 o'clock train for Washington ? 

Mr. BissoN. 1 : 30. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. All right, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fanelli. May I read this document? I am awaiting your rul- 
ing on it. I understood there was an objection to my reading it. 

Senator Ferguson. No ; there is no objection to you reading it, but 
we do not want to delay the examination. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Neither of those two items identified previously by 
the witness has been offered for the record. The purpose for waiting 
has been to give you an opportunity to read it. 

]Mr. Fanelli. I have been listening to your questions. I cannot do 
two things at once. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is it your thought that you have the right or privi- 
lege to object to the offer of any of these for the record ? 

Mr. Fanelli. I have not objected to the offer. I understand this 
committee does not permit me to object. 

I may make a suggestion. I have not objected to the offer. I would 
merely like to understand what is going on. I may have to confer 
with my witness about it. 

Senator Ferguson. Those two documents will be filed for the record. 
You may proceed now with the questioning. 

(The documents referred to were marked Exhibits No. 716 and No. 
717 and are as follows :) 

Exhibit No. 716 
[Source: Amerasia, vol. Ill, September-February 1939-40] 

Topics In Brief 

japan picks up the pieces 

Somewhere in Europe, possibly in Switzerland, a Japanese mission is cooling its 
heels. Responding to Mr. Hitler's personal invitation, it had left Tokyo late in 
July to attend the Nazi Congress at Nuremberg. The Party consisted of General 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4201 

Terauchi, Admiral Osumi, and two distinguished Japanese businessmen. Its 
announced purpose was tlie strengthening of Japan's ties with Berlin and Rome 
under the '-anti-Comintern" pact. Some reports indicated that the long-deferred 
military alliance with the Axis powers was about to be concluded, and that the 
Japanese mission was to touch up the final details. The group landed in Europe 
at the moment when the Soviet-German nonaggression pact was announced. 
Since then the Nuremberg Congress has been called off, thus completing the dis- 
comfiture of Japan's envoys. 

The plight of this mission reflects in miniature the larger predicament into 
which Japan has been plunged by the Soviet-German pact. Throughout the first 
week, Japan's militarists and politicians fumbled for an answer to the acute 
dilemma. At Berlin they presented a feeble protest against violation of the 
"spirit" of the "anti-Comintern" pact, while privately they seethed at the lack of 
"advance information" on a move which affected their international position so 
profoundly. In China some of the acts of the Japanese military exhibited a child- 
ish exasperation; the slappings administered to German nationals obviously 
provided no answer to their problem. 

Japan's dithculties were serious enough before conclusion of the nonaggression 
pact, which has greatly strengthened the possibility of effective intervention on 
behalf of China by the Soviet Union. For several months the Japanese leaders, 
counting on the European crisis to immobilize all opponents, had been pursuing a 
recklessly provocative policy in the Far East. Hostilities on the Manchurian- 
Mongolian frontier were permitted to reach serious proportions, apparently in the 
belief that they might discourage the formation of an Anglo-French-Soviet al- 
liance. At the same time, the Japanese were carrying on a bitter campaign 
against foreign rights and interests in China. The effort to single out Britain 
for special attack at Tientsin was too transparent to go down ; it was obvious that 
American and French interests stood or fell with tliose of Britain. From the 
beginning of Japan's campaign in the spring, in fact, there had been definite 
collaboration by London, Paris, and Washington in defense of their position in 
China. Secretary Hull's denunciation of the Japanese-American commercial 
treaty must have made this point clear in Tokyo, if it had not been realized earlier. 
But by this time Japan had gone too far to retreat. It was carrying the fight 
directly to Great Britain and the Soviet Union, and indirectly to the United States 
and France. For international support, it was relying on its "anti-Comintern" 
partners — Germany and Italy. 

On the eve of the current European crisis, Japan's campaign had been tempo- 
rarily checkmated. The essential issue revolved around the scope of the con- 
cessions which Japan could milk from the Craigie-Arita '•formula" of July 24. 
In the beginning, the prospects appeared hopeful to Tokyo. The Japanese leaders 
were gambling for big stakes. Beyond the immediate policing issues affecting the 
British Concession at Tientsin, they looked for Britain's cooperation in consoli- 
dating their economic domination of "occupied" China, particularly in currency 
matters. And still further, they aimed to secure Britain's aid in coercing China 
into a ''peace" maker, Japan hoped to gain a victory in China which it had 
proved unable to win by force of arms. 

In the beginning of the Craigie-Arita negotiations, all went well. Secretary 
Hull's denunciation of the trade treaty, however, had considerably strengthened 
Britain's hand at Tokyo. After making the expected compromise on the policing 
of the Tientsin Concession, the British negotiators balked. Japan's demands on 
currency and other economic issues in North China were given lengthy con- 
sideration, involving consultation with Washington and Paris officials. On 
August ISth Britain essentially rejected these demands by stating that they 
could only be dealt with in multilateral conversations involving all interested 
powers. The stage was set for another turn of the Japanese screw. Ominous 
signs of renewed army pressure on British centers in China were evident as 
the European crisis entered its rising curve. At Shanghai a shooting affray, in 
which a British sergeant killed two China policemen of the local puppet regime 
in self-defense, was taken as the point of departure. Japanese military and 
naval officials met and conferred, demands were made by the local Japanese- 
dominated authorities, and a force of 6,000 Japanese troops was landed near 
Shanghai. At Hongkong, meanwhile, Japanese military forces had occupied the 
mainland areas along the Crown Colony's border, and extensive military -naval 
precautions were taken by the Hongkong authorities. 

Announcement of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact occurred as Japan's 
preparations for renewed pressure on Britain were reaching a climax. The blow 
struck Tokyo with crushing force. Only a month before it had suffered the shock 



4202 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

of an action which registered the disapproval of the United States. Now it 
suddenly found itself deserted by Germany. It had nothing but its own strengtli— 
or lack of strength — to midergird the reckless moves which it engaged upon. An 
unfinished war with China, hostilities with Russia on Outer Mongolia's border, 
a serious conflict with Britain, latent tension with France, and the undisguised 
hostility of the United States — all these to carry on its own shoulders, plus the 
unpredictable effects on the sudden access of strength to the Soviet Union in the 
Far East. It was high time to reconsider and take stock of the new situation. 

The first reactions were evident in China. A sudden damper was put on the 
anti-British campaign. No more was heard of the demands on the Shanghai 
Municipal Council, or of the 6,000 Japanese troops landed in the neighboring area. 
At Hongkong the Japanese troops were withdrawn from the borders of the 
Colony, and local Japanese officials discounted any talk of aggressive moves. 

A more significant reaction appeared in Tokyo on August 28th, when the 
Hiranuma Cabinet resigned en bloc. The military-fascist extremists in Japan, 
who had been clamorously demanding an outright alliance with the Berlin-Rome 
axis, appear to have suffered their most decisive political set back of the past 
three years. Preliminary reports with regard to the composition of the new 
Cabinet indicate a decided falling off in the influence of army extremists. Gen- 
eral Nobuyki Abe, the new Japanese premier, is not a member of the extremist 
clique ; his past associations and record tend to place him among the more 
moderate of the army elements. Even the new War Minister, General Shunroku 
Hata, comes from a wing of the army that cannot be classified as extremist. 
Most significant of all is the consideration being given to the appointment of 
Mamoru Shigemitsu, now Ambassador to London, as Foreign Minister. Prior 
to his service in London, Shigemitsu held the post of Ambassador at Moscow for 
a period of several years. An old career diplomat of the civilian school, Shige- 
mitsu will undoubtedly be called upon to play a conciliatory role in relation t-: 
the Western powers. Another sign of discomfiture of Japan's military-fascist 
exponents may be seen in the projected recall from Rome and Berlin of Toshio 
Shiratori and Lieutenant-General Hiroshi Oshima. These two Ambassadors par- 
ticipated in the original formation of the "anti-Comintern" pact in November 
1930, and during recent months had actively campaigned to convert the pact 
into an outright military alliance. 

After the events of recent months in China, the new Japanese leadership may 
expect to find some difficulty in convincing the Western powers that it comes 
honestly bearing an olive branch. The real test is whether Japan is willing to 
give up its brutal attempt to subjugate the Chinese people. Of this there is as 
yet no sign. The Abe Cabinet reaffirms its intention of establishing the "new 
order in East Asia" — an "order" which involves not only the conquest of China 
but the eventual elimination of all Western interests in the Far East. The 
scenes at Tientsin are of too recent memory to be erased by a sudden shift of 
tactics dictated by temporary necessity. If cleverly applied, conciliatory tactics 
hold out more danger to China's efforts to maintain its independence than the 
recklessly arrogant policy of the Japanese extremists. To Britain, in particu- 
lar, they would appeal with especial force at the present time. A bribe may 
often be more effective than a blow. In order to conclude a "deal" that would 
sacrifice China, Britain would have to receive a quid pro quo. Is the present 
Japanese Cabinet alile to make such an offer? And would it be garnished with 
the plea that Japan must be conserved as a makeweight against the increased 
strength and influence which the Soviet Union can exert in the Far East? It is 
to be hoped that any such offers, if tendered, will be recognized for what they 
are worth. 

In the ultimate disposition of Far Eastern affaii'S, moreover, reckoning must 
be had with another power — the United States. Editorial reaction to Secretary 
Hull's denunciation of the Japanese-American trade treaty, as shown in a repre- 
sentative selection of newspapers from coast to coast, is indicative of what the 
American people have come to believe on the current issues of Far Eastern policy. 
Approval of Secretary Hull's move is virtually unanimous, while a surprisingly 
large majority favors implementation of this act by severance of America's trade 
in war materials with Japan. The result of a nationwide Gallup poll, announced 
on August 30th, shows that 81 pei-cent of Americans approve the abrogation of the 
American-Japanese trade treaty, while 82 percent believe that the United States 
.should refuse to sell war materials at the end of six months when the treaty 
expires. There can be little doubt tliat, short of a complete reversal of its 
attempt to dominate China, Japan can expect no aid or support from the United 
States. This country, as a result of our misnamed Neutrality Act, has already 
rendered — and is still rendering — far too much assistance to Japan's undeclared 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4203 

war on the Chinese people. Today popular opinion overwhelmingly approves the 
adoption of measures which will bring to an end America's partnership with 
Japan's war makers. It would be unfortunate if small but powerful groups 
representing the vested interests of minorities should bring to bear sufficient 
influence to thwart this expressed will of the American people. 

T. A. B. 



Exhibit No. 717 
[Source: China Today, May 1941] 

The Soviet- Japanese Pact in Historical Perspective 

(By T. A. Bisson) 

Interpretations of the Soviet-Japanese pact have about equally the number 
of its interpreters. All sorts of motivations have been ascribed to it, some of 
which obviously cancel each other out. Hitlerian diplomacy may be very clever, 
but even the Nazis cannot square the circle. Germany cannot be at once the 
father of the pact and the object against which it is directed. 

The plain fact .seems to be that the pact was greeted with considerable reserve 
in Berlin and Rome. For this, the reasons are fairly obvious. Germany had 
hoped to induct the U. S. S. K. into the Axis-Japan alliance via a Soviet-Japanese 
agreement. It did not achieve this aim. The neutrality pact signed at Moscow 
on April 13 was clearly an indei>endent transaction, which cuts two ways. If it 
bars Soviet aid to the United States and Britain in a war against Japan, it also 
bars Japanese aid to Germany in the event of a Soviet-German collision. 

In concluding this agreement with Japan, as in its earlier pact with Germany, 
the Soviet Union joins neither of the opposing coalitions into which the world 
has been divided. Rather is the independence of its position strikingly demon- 
strated. To recognize this fact, it is only necessary to look at the course of Axis 
diplomacy during the war. 

Last September Tokyo adhered to the Axis by signing the military alliance 
drafted by Hitler in Berlin. But the full scope of the Hitlerian project was still 
unrealized. It required the Soviet Union as a full-fledged member in order 
to be completed. Adherence of the U. S. S. R. would have rounded out the 
Axis- Japan alliance on a grand scale — Eurasian, two-continental. But the 
Soviet Union has not entered this projected military combination, any more 
than it entered the original Berlin-Rome Axis in August 1939. It has, instead, 
signed a separate nonaggression pact with Germany and a separate neutrality 
pact with Japan, thus fending off both these powers and retaining the maximum 
degree of diplomatic independence for itself. There is nothing to prevent the 
Soviet Union from concluding neutrality or nonaggression pacts with Britain 
and the United States tomorrow, if these powers seriously desired such agree- 
ments. The major restriction on the Soviet Union's freedom of action comes 
in this respect — that it will not join the Anglo-American front in war against 
either Germany or Japan. This result, of course, is not especially welcome 
to those British or American circles which would like to see the U. S. S. R. 
come into the war on their side. They have merely the negative satisfaction 
that the Soviet Union is also pledged not to join the Axis-Japan alliance in 
war against the Anglo-American coalition. 

What have been the historical factors which have led to the evolution of 
Soviet policy along these lines? For to those who are willing to look facts in 
the face, there is nothing mysterious or enigmatic about the development of 
Soviet policy during recent years. The Soviet-German pact of August 1939 
was a logical result of the course taken by British diplomacy in Europe during 
the immediately preceding years. Similarly, the Soviet-Japanese pact of April 
1941 is the logical outcome of British and American policy in the Far East 
since 1937. 

At this time it is instructive to look back for a moment upon the Anglo- 
French diplomacy of appeasement in 1933-1939, to which the United States — 
by its embargo on the Spanish Loyalists and its failure to embargo the Japanese 
militarists — was also a party. In all three countries — Britain, France, and 
the United States — a large body of opinion condemned appeasement as suicidal 
for the democracies, argued that it served to strengthen Germany, Japan, and 
Italy and encourage the spread of their aggressions, and advocated a policy 
of collective restraint of the Fascist aggressors. At Geneva, through Maxim 



4204 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Litvinov, the Soviet Union championed this policy of collective security and 
fought for its application by a united front of all powers opposed to Fascist 
aggression. The ruling groups in London, Paris, and Washington thought 
otherwise, and translated their belief into a series of actions which demon- 
strated their essential unity of outlooli with the Fascist powers. Britain, France, 
and the United States stubbornly persisted in "building up" the aggressors by 
one surrender after another — the Anglo-German naval agreement, the Ethiopian 
fiasco, the rearmament of Germany, the Rhineland remilitarization, "noninter- 
vention" in Spain, the Austrian occupation, and, finally, the Munich pact by 
which Czechoslovakia was sacrificed. 

In the Far East, Britain, France, and the United States failed to extend 
effective help to China, Init continued to arm Japan liberally. Official Washing- 
ton, it must be reemphasized, did not oppose the diplomacy of appeasement but 
pursued a policy of "parallel action" which supported Chamberlain to the hilt. 
We twisted our neutrality laws in such a way as to ban the shipment of American 
arms to the Loyalists in Spain, even while we permitted an enormou:s flow of 
war supplies to Japan. American statutes were twisted and distorted, but there 
was no contradiction in the intent and effects of the policy which these distor- 
tions allowed us to pursue. It enabled the Fascist troops of Mussolini and 
Hitler to win in Spain, and it helped the Japanese armies to overrun China. 

The betrayal of democracy by the democracies during the appeasement era 
is the factor mainly responsible for the difliculties in which we find ourselves 
today. It defeated the program of collective resistance to Fascist aggression, 
which could alone have maintained peace, and crushed the League of Nations. 
It started the train of "little nation" casualties — numbering Manchuria, Ethiopia, 
Austria, Czechoslovakia and Spain before the European war broke out in 
September 1930. It built up Germany's strength to the point at which Hitler 
could openly launch his drive for conquest and hegemony. 

It also accomplished one further result. It drove the Soviet Union out of 
the concert of the democracies. The Munich Pact enforced a temporary inter- 
national isolation of the U. S. S. R. Although Soviet interests were vitally 
affected by the decisions reached at Munich, Chamberlain and Daladier did 
not see fit to include the Soviet Union in the negotiations which decided 
Czechoslovakia's fate. The Munich Pact reduced to a travesty the mutual 
assistance treaties which the U. S. S. R. had concluded with Czechoslovakia and 
France. By breaking Czechoslovakia, moreover, Britain and France opened 
up a path for Hitler toward the Soviet LTkraine. Did they hope that Munich 
wtmld usher in a German-Soviet war? Only nine months later these powers 
were seeking a military alliance with the U. S. S. R. at Moscow. The latter 
chose to reject this alliance, to sign a non-aggression pact v.ith Germany, and 
to remain neutral in the ensuing war — a war, be it noted, caused not by the 
Soviet-German pact but by the Anglo-French-American policy of appeasement in 
the 1933-193!> era. In order to ensure peace, Britain, France and the LTnited 
States would have been obliged to oppose Fascist aggression rather earlier, by 
some five years at least, than 1939. The Soviet Union chose to stay out of 
what it considered an imperialist war, which the Anglo-French-American rejec- 
tion of a collective security program, designed to restrain the aggressors and 
lieep the peace, had made possible. 

When we turn to the Far East, we are struck by an amazing coincidence. 
The same broad pattern of events as occurred in Europe has been repeated 
there. The Anglo-American failure to restrain Japan's occupation of Man- 
churia in 1931-1933, indeed, marked the opening phase of the appeasement era, 
encouraging Hitler and Mussolini to follow Japan's example. After the Jap- 
anese wholesale assault on China began in 1937, the diplomatic parallel between 
European and Far Eastern appeasement becomes even more striking. Washing- 
ton officials issued a continuous series of statements condenming Japan's activ- 
ities, but the United States consistently supplied more than half of Japan's 
imports of war materials ; if the British and Dutch empires are added in, the 
democracies have supplied more than three-quarters of such imports. In 1940, 
despite sharp declines in November and December, we still shipped Japan goods 
valued at $227 million, only $5 million less than the 1939 total. Nor have we 
ever given adequate aid to China — in munitions, which China needed K.5st, 
support by either the United States or Britain has been negligible. 

Our continued refusal to embargo Japan (even at the current rate we are 
still supplying more than $100,0()0,(KM) worth of goods annually to Japan, includ- 
ing the bulk of its petroleum imports) and to give adequate aid to China 
(plane shipments are just beginning on a very limited scale) has had the same 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4205 

results in the Far East as the policy of appeasing Hitler and Mussolini had in 
Europe. It has kept Japan's military machine in good running gear, spread 
Japanese aggression from Manchuria to Indo-China, and raised the spectre of 
a Japanese onslaught against Singapore, the Dutch East Indies and the Philip- 
pines. And once again the Soviet Union, this time by a neutrality pact with 
Japan, has sharply dissociated itself from the logical outcome of Anglo-American 
policy in the Far East. The pact signifies quite clearly that the U. S. S. R. will 
take no part in a Japanese-American conflict, if such a conflict occurs. It means 
that the United States cannot expect Soviet assistance in a war against Japan, 
any more than Britain has received Soviet assistance it its war with Germany. 
The Soviet Union obviously feels that such conflicts have been made possible 
as much by British and American support of the German and Japanese aggres- 
sors, as by the aggressiveness of the Nazis and the Japanese militarists them- 
selves. So far as lies in its power, it is evidently determined not to engage in 
them. 

For Americans, therefore, the Soviet-Japanese pact constitutes a sharp chal- 
lenge — a challenge to think through the implications of our Far Eastern policy. 
Some have been quick to say that the pact has freed Japan's hands for an attack 
in the south Pacific, and that it thus encourages a Japanese-American conflict. 
But if Japan's hands are really free for such an attack, which may be the subject 
of some doubt, what has actually freed them? What has spread Japan's aggres- 
sion from Manchuria to Indo-China? It is not the neutrality pact signed at 
Moscow. It is rather the consistent unwillingness of the United States and 
Britain to oppose the spread of that aggression, either by effective embargoes 
against Japan or effective aid to China. If Britain and the United States must 
now prepare to fight Japan in the Far East, it is because of their own failure to 
oppose Japanese aggression in the past — first in 1931, but more especially since 
1937. 

This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the U. S. S. R. has been the 
single power that has consistently supported China's struggle against the Japa- 
nese invasion since 1937, not only by diplomatic notes but in actual deeds. Its 
loans to China, considerably larger than ours, have been translated into finished 
mimitions for the Chinese armies ; we have been satisfied to send trucks and 
petroleum. While our war trade with Japan boomed, the Soviet-Japanese trade 
turn-over rapidly dwindled from over 50 million yen in 1936 to a few hundred 
thousand yen in 1939-1940. Throughout the period since 1937, the Soviet Union 
was making it less possible for Japanese aggression to spread by offering real 
and consistent opposition to it. This opposition was not wholly without risk — 
it involved severe military confiicts with Japan on the borders of Manchoukuo 
in 1938 and 1939. Had we joined hands firmly with the Soviet Union after 1937 
in opposing Japanese aggression, we could have long since brought it to a halt. 
We have not assumed the lesser risks of firm and unequivocal opposition to 
Japanese aggression, but we have accepted the greater risk of permitting it to 
spread and offering it aid and comfort in the process. We were loath to see the 
threat when Japan merely devastated China ; today we see the threat of our tin 
and rubber supplies in southeast Asia quite clearly. The threat exists because 
of our policy — American, British and French policy — and not because of a 
Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact. 

Nor has the Soviet Union, in signing this pact, agreed to give up its policy of 
extending aid and support to China. It has notified Chungking that it will con- 
tinue to send military supplies to the Chinese armies. This aspect of the neu- 
trality pact has, in fact, been sharply attacked by some of the more aggressive 
Japanese circles. The recognize the sharp distinction which Moscow has drawn — 
a distinction between maintenance of peaceful relations with Japan and its 
people, and continued opposition to Japanese aggression in China. 

It is this distinction which many supporters of China's struggle in this country 
would like to see drawn by the American Government. The American people 
have no quarrel with the .Japanese people. But they are distinctly opposed to 
Japanese aggression in China, and are anxious to see that adequate American 
aid is given to the Chinese people's struggle for freedom. They are not satisfied 
that Washington is applying this program with sufficient vigor. Concrete meas- 
ures of support for China continue to lag. Complete and unequivocal denial of 
American aid to Japanese aggression has yet to be effected. Such a policy is still 
the best insurance against a Japanese-American war in the Pacific. Signs of 
hesitation on Washington's part, or any remnants of the old feeling that a "deal" 
might be arranged with Tokyo at China's expense, would be the surest invitation 
to catastrophe. 

88348— 52— pt. 12 12 



4206 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Chairman, may I consult with my counsel on 
this question? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. I would like to consult with him as soon as he reads 
the article. 

Senator Ferguson. You want to consult with him about that 
article ? 

Mr. BissoN. I want to consult with him about the ]:>roblem that has 
arisen at this point in the hearing. 

Senator Ferguson. What is the problem? 

Mr. BissoN. The material that has just been submitted and the 
questions that are presumably to be asked. 

Senator Ferguson. If you want to confer with your counsel you 
may. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions to ask after 
that point. They are on a different matter. Perhaps we can save time 
and get them in while counsel is reading that. The witness can inter- 
rupt counsel if he feels at any point he needs to consult him. These 
are other matters entirely. 

What does the phrase "Corbett group" mean to you ? 

Mr. BissoN. How would you spell that? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. C-o-r-b-e-t-t — Corbett group. 

Mr. BissoN. I have never heard of it. 

Oh ! Corbett group. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. That is what I said. 

Mr. BissoN. Is that in terms of a Mv. Corbett who wrote a study of 
the Institute of Pacific Kelations? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I asked you what the phrase meant to you. 

Mr. BissoN. It means nothing to me. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Were vou in Peking, China, in the winter of 1937- 
38? 

Mr. BissoN. Up to nearly or about the beginning of December, 
Maybe I was there the first week in December. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was Mv. John K. Fairbank there at the time you 
M-ere there ? The winter of 1937 ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not think so. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you see him there in Peking at that time ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was Mrs. Fairbank there, Wilma Fairbank? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't remember. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was Mr. Owen Lattimore there? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Was Mrs. Lattimore there? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you see him ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Frequently? 

Mr. BissoN. I would not say frequently ; occasionally. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Socially? 

Mr. BissoN. Socially. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was Mr. Eeischauer there at that time? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; he was. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you see him? 

Mr. BissoN. I think T saw him once or twice. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4207 

Mr. SoTJRWiNE. Socially? 

Mr. BissON. Yes. 

]\Ir. SouRwiNE. Did you ever attend a meeting of the World Affairs 
Council of Northern California? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you attend such a meeting in December of 
1949? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. At that meeting, did you do anything indicating 
that you favored reorganizing Communist China ? 

Mr. BissoN. I would suppose that in a discussion group in the course 
of the conference I may have so indicated ; yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you have any memory as to whether you did? 

Mr. BissoN. I think I probably did. 

Senator Ferguson. Were you in favor of it at that time? 

Mr. BissoN. I was. May I extend my answer to that question, 
please ? 

Mr. SouR^viNE, Surely. 

Senator Ferguson. Could I ask one question? What part of No- 
vember was it-? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. It was December. 

Mr. BissoN. December. 

Senator Ferguson. Then we were at war. 

Mr. BissoN. No; that is exactly the point. We were not at war 
with Korea at that time, and at that time there was considerable senti- 
ment in favor of a recognition of the Peking government. It was by 
no means a limited group that so felt that way about the situation 
at that time. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. The entire World Affairs Council, or the majority 
of it at this meeting was in favor of recognizing Communist China ; 
wasn't it ? 

Mr. BissoN. I have here a statement of the world trade depart- 
ment of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. This appeared, I 
suppose, about 2 months before the conference, October 18, 1949. 
Under a heading, "Realistic policy in China recommended by cham- 
ber," there are these statements : 

Adoption of a realistic and positive policy by the United States toward the 
Far East, particularly China, in place of the present watchful waiting by the 
S'tate Department has been strongly urged by the chamber's board of directors. 
Recommendations of the board include first, continued American private busi- 
ness and trade with the Chinese as far as possible without dangerously increas- 
ing that country's war potential. 

(2) Give all possible aid to and continue financial support of American pri- 
vately endowed enterprises, educational, medical, and missionary. 

(3) Keep open our Embassy and consular offices in China, stafling them with 
the ablest personnel available so that we may meet with our best capacities the 
serious problems still ahead. 

(4) Accept the fact that we may soon have to recognize in such areas as they 
control the Communist Government as the de facto government, whether we like 
it or not. 

This established policy is crystallized in our new recommendations into a 
strong, clear position now necessary in the face of indecision of crises. 

Recognition of the Chinese Government as the de facto government is essen- 
tial. It is thoroughly realistic and necessary. Nothing could be gained by de- 
claring an embargo against the Communists. 

I merely want to indicate I was not adopting a unique position at 
that time. 



4208 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

As you have indicated, most of the conference which is now under 
reference seemed to favor that policy. The San Francisco Chamber 
of Commerce also did. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You recall the question I asked you a few minutes 
ago about Corbett? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I direct you attention to page 253 of our printed 
hearings, part 1, where appears the text of a letter dated May 29 from 
Edward C. Carter to W. L. Holland, the last paragraph of which 
reads : 

Last week we had a special meeting on Soviet policy in the Pacific made up of 
some members of Corbett's group, but it was an ad hoc meeting. Those present 
were: Kathleen Barnes, Lockwood, Grajdanzev, Corbett, Muhle, Bisson, Moore, 
Field, James Allen, Bill Carter, E. C. Carter, and Owen Lattimore, and Leaning. 

Mr. Bisson. I had completely forgotten that particular meeting. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does this refresh your memory? 

Mr. BissoN. It does. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Tell us about that meeting. 

Mr. BissoN. I remember nothing at all about it. If I had remem- 
bered anything about it, I think I would have recalled when you first 
mentioned it. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know what is meant by "Corbett's group"? 

Mr. BissoN. It is still very vague to me. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What can you remember about it ? 

Mr. BissoN. Apparently I can only recall what you just stated, that 
this seems to be a group that is studying Soviet policy problems. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you remember any of the members whose names 
I read there ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do know — remember as attending that meeting? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know Kathleen Barnes? ' 

Mr. Bisson. You are asking do I know these members ? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Do you know a Lockwood ? Would that have been 
William Lockwood? 

Mr. BissoN. Probably; yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know a Grajdanzev? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would that have been Andrew Grajdanvev? 

Mr. BissoN. Probably. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know Corbett ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. That is why I originally asked you whether this 
was Charles Corbett. 

Mr. Morris. Was it Percy Corbett ? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know both a Charles and a Percy Corbett? 

Mr. BissoN. Not to my knowledge ; no. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know a (Jorbett connected with the TPR? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes, it must have been Percy Corbett. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What was his connection with the IPR? 

Mr. BissoN. I remember him as doing a study on international peace 
problems. Is there any indication he published a book on interna- 
tional paths to peace, or something of that kind ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4209 

Mr. SouRWiNE. There is no indication right here as to what he may 
have published, Mr. Bisson. 

Do you know a Mr. Muhle? 

Mr. Bisson. I do not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you ever know anyone with that name? 

Mr. Bisson. I don't think so. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You appeared to have attended a meeting with him 
for the purpose of studying Soviet policy. 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember that person. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know Mr. Moore? 

Mr. BissoN. I would have to know his first name. There are lots 
of Moores. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Could it have been a Miss or Mrs. Moore ? 

Mr. Bisson. It could have been. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. Could it have been Harriet Moore? 

Mr. Bisson. It might have been. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you have any memory as to whether it was ? 

Mr. Bisson. I have no memory as to whether it was at that partic- 
ular meeting. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know a Mr. Field ? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would that be Frederick Vanderbilt Field? 

Mr. Bisson. I would not know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You have no memory of a meeting ? 

Mr. Bisson. Not of this meeting. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know a James Allen ? 

Mr. Bisson. Would you spell that? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. A-1-l-e-n. 

Mr. Bisson. No. 

Mr. Sour WINE. You do not know a James Allen? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Apparently you attended a meeting with him. 

Mr. Bisson. That meeting has completely passed from my memory. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know a Bill Carter ? ^ 

Mr. BissoN. I do ; yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Wlio is he ? 

Mr. Bisson. I think he is the son of E. C. Carter. 

Mr. SouiiwiNE. Do you know Mr. E, C. Carter? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You know Mr. Owen Lattimore ? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You know a Mr. Leaning ? 

Mr. Bisson. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. To the best of your knowledge, sir, do you know, 
or did you ever have any reason to believe, that any of these persons 
who have been named as attending this meeting were under Commu- 
nist discipline or had voluntarily, knowingly cooperated or collabo- 
rated with Community Party members in the furtherance of Commu- 
nist Party objectives? 

Mr. Bisson. Would you read the list? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Kathleen Barnes. 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Lockwood. 

Mr. Bisson. No. 



4210 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Grajdanzev. 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Corbett. 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Miihle. 

Mr. BissoN. I don't think I know him. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Moore. 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Field. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Bill Carter. 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. E. C. Carter? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Owen Lattimore? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Leaning? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know how many times you met with Mr. 
Corbett's group for the study of Soviet policy ? 

Mr. BissoN. Would you give me the date of this again? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. No ; my question is : Do you know how many times 
3^ou met ? 

Mr. BissoN. This will help me to answer that question. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you remember whether you met as many as 10 
times ? 

Mr. BissoN. Could you give me the date of the meeting ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. This was in May 1940. 

Mr. BissoN. May 1940? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. To the best of my knowledge, I never attended that 
meeting again, that group. If I was at that particular group at that 
time, I have no remembrance of being at any other meeting of that 
group. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you think you might have attended a meeting 
of that group at some other time ? 

Mr. BissoN. I doubt it very much. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you attend other meetings for the purpose of 
studying Soviet policy ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. You are speaking of this group ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. No. 

Mr. BissoN. No; I did not. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I am trying to find out what could have confused 
you in your mind if you did not do it elsewhere and did not do it 
here except once, so there should not be any problem for you. 

Mr. BissoN. The problem here is vevy simply this : You have given 
me an indication that I attended one meeting of this group. When 
you gave me that indication, the group meant nothing to me and 
it still does not as far as my memory is concerned, and I have no 
memory ever meeting with that group again. At that time I was not 
in the IPR. I may have been invited on that particular occasion and 
may not have been invited to that group again. 

I am inclined to thinlj that is the situation, because my memory 
is so defective. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4211 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I have nothing further on that point. 
Mr. Fanelli. Could we take a 2-minute recess at this point? 
Senator Eastland (presiding). We will take a 2-minute recess. 
(Short recess.) 

Senator Eastland. Proceed, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, have you read this article: The Soviet- 
Japanse Pact in Historical Perspective ? 
Mr. Bissox. I have looked it over. 
Mr. Morris. Are you the author of that article ? 
Mr. Bisson. I am. 
Mr. Morris. May I read this one sentence here ? 

For to those who are willing to look facts in the face, there is nothing mys- 
terious or enigmatic about the development of Soviet policy during recent years. 
The Soviet-German pact of August 11)39 was a logical resuH of the course taken 
by British diplomacy in Europe during the immediately preceding years. Sim- 
ilarly, the Soviet-Japanese pact of April 1941 is the logical outcome of British and 
American policy in the Far East since 1937. 

I introduce that and the whole article, and suggest that the whole 
article be placed in the record bearing on the questions addressed to 
the witness that he did not support the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. 

Senator Eastland. How long were you with the IPR? 

Mr. Bisson. I was with the IPR for 2 years, a little over 2 years? 

Senator Eastland. Were you associated with Mr. Field? 

Mr. Bisson. May 1 make a correction to a statement he just sum- 
marized there? 

Mr. Fanelli. Answer the question first. 

Mr. Bisson. I think in the summary of his concluding sentence to 
which my mind was paying- attention, he said that I said that I had 
not supported this pact. I think my original statement was to the 
best of my knowledge, which you did not add. 

Mr. Fanelli. Answer the Senator's question. 

Senator Eastland. Were you associated with Mr. Field ? 

Mr. Bisson. I was. 

Senator Eastland. Did you know the officials of the institute? 

Mr. Bisson. I did. 

Senator Eastland. I want you to be perfectly frank. You con- 
sidered the institute — and I want you to think before you answer the 
question — you considered and so said that the institute was a Com- 
munist-dominated organization, did you not ? 

Mr. Bisson. I never said anything of that kind. 

Senator Eastland. You deny that ? 

Mr. Bisson. The Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. I want you to think now. Think before 
you answer. Before you place yourself in the position that you never 
made a statement, think. 

Mr. Bisson. Have you completed your statement? 

Senator Eastland. I want you to answer my question. 

Mr. Bisson. To the best of my knowledge in the slightly over 2 years 
that I was connected with the Institute of Pacific Relations, I saw no 
evidence that it was an organization that was controlled by Commu- 
nist influence. 

Senator Eastland. You say, "to the best of my knowledge," you saw 
no evidence. Is that what you said? 

Mr. Bisson. I am prepared to say I saw no evidence. 



4212 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Eastland. You also state flatly that you never made the 
statement that it was Communist-controlled ? 

Mr. Bissox. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you go to Yenan in 1937 ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Were there any prearangements made on that trip, 
prearrangements with Communist authorities? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. What arrangements were made ? 

Mr. BissoN. May I begin at the beginning ? 

Senator Eastland. No, sir; I want you to answer that question. 

Mr. Morris. Just tell us about the prearrangements. 

Mr. BissoN. Lattimore and I decided we wanted to go to Yenan. 
Mr. Snow, who had been in the area and had come out, was in Peking. 
We therefore naturally contacted him to see whether there was any 
possibility of making contacts that would enable us to get into the 
area. 

Mr. Morris. Wlien you say "we," you mean you and Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Lattimore and me. 

Mr. Morris. Did Mr. Snow arrange for you to get permission to go 
into Yenan ? 

Mr. BissoN. I know nothing about the details of what Mr. Snow 
did. All I know is that he apparently, through persons that he knew, 
received assurances that we could enter the area and so notified us 
some 3 or 4 weeks later. 

Mr. Morris. He notified you arrangements had already been made 
and you did have permission to go into the area ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. He notified you and Mr. Lattimore of that fact ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. How did he notify you ? 

Mr. BissoN. He just told us. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, did you meet Mao Tse-tung in your trip 
to Yenan ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you have an interview with him ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write up that interview in Amerasia of Oc- 
tober 1937? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. What Mr. Morris wants to know is whether this 
article in the named issue is one written by you. 

Mr. Bisson. Yes ; that is what I am trying to decide at this moment. 
Yes, apparently I wrote this interview. But apparently, as it indi- 
cates in the foreword there was an interview given to all of us. 

Mr. Morris. Did anyone help you in writing this article ? 

Mr. BissoN. No; not to my knowledge. 

Mr. Morris. Are the facts stated here true, to the best of your recol- 
lection? 

Mr. Bisson. They are. ^ 

Mr. Morris. May that be introduced ? " 

Mr. Eastland. It will be entered in the record. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 719," and is as 
follows : ) 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4213 

Exhibit No. 719 
[Source : Amerasia, vol. 1, September-February 1937-38, pp. 360-365] 

Mao Tse-Tung Analyzes Nanking in Interview 
(By T. A. Bisson) 

Editors' Note. — During the latter part of June, three members of the editorial 
board of Amerasia, T. A. Bisson, PhiMp J. Jaffe, and Owen Lattimore made a 
trip tosether into tlie Chinese Soviet area in Shensi Province. During a stay 
of several days In the capital, Yenanfu (Fushin), they interviewed extensively 
most of the inipoTtant political and military leaders. Much of the material 
gathered is not yet in sufficiently organized fashion for publication, but the 
following interview with Mao Tse-Tung, at the time Chairman of the Revolu- 
tionary Military Council, is here presented in the hope that our readers will be 
tlie better able to follow the future developments in the now accomplished 
united front between the Comnuinist and Kuomintang Parties. The following 
interview was written liy T. A. Bisson, though all three of the editors were 
present during the interview. Since this interview was given 2 months before 
the completion of the united front, its significance becomes more apparent in 
the light of such consummation. A discussion of tlie Communist-Kuomintang 
rapprochnient is given in another article in this issue. The Far East at the 
Crossroads, by P. J. Jaffe. 

Question: What has been the evolution of Nanking's policy toward Japnn 
since 1931? Is it possible to- distinguish several phases in this development? 

Answer : Two periods may be distinguished. The first period began with 
September IS, 19.31, and ended with the Kuomintang Second Plenary Session in 
July 193G. In this period the Kuomintang continued the policy which it had 
really initiated in 1927 ; it depended on imperialisim, made concessions to im- 
perialism, and suppressed the people. 

After September 18 it gave up M;inchuria unconditionally. Due to the Shang- 
hai War the Chinese bourgeoisie were afraid of Japanese imperialism. They 
had prepared no defense works at all in the coastal provinces and were ready to 
give up these provinces to Japan. During the Shanghai War they prepared 
to move to Loyang as the provisional capital, and then to Sian if necessary. Only 
after Nanking saw that Japan began the Shanghai War as a means to legalize 
the seizure of Manchuria, and that the Japanese troops had no intention of 
occupying the coastal provinces, and that Great P>ritain and the United States 
made some efforts against Japan — only then did Nanking decide not to move 
the capital. So they returned to Nanking, but they were still afraid of Japan 
and continued so until after the North Cliina developments in November-Decem- 
ber 1935. 

In 1935 Japan wanted to occupy North China at once and so frightened Nan- 
king that it signed the Ho-Umetsu compromise agreement. This attitude pre- 
vailed until the Fifth Congress, in November-December 1935. At tliat time 
Nanking continued to say that if peace was still possible it didn't want to fight, 
i. e., it was prepared to surrender further. 

Only in July 1936, at the Second Plenary Session, did Nanking begin to change 
its tone toward Japan. At this session it declared that if Japan would not further 
violate Chinese sovereignty, would not take more territory, it would not fight. 
Thus it explained the limit of sacrifice it was prepared to make, defining this 
as the maintenance of the status quo. The actual steps to represent this change 
of line were the negotiations between Chang Ch'un and Kawagoe, when Nanking 
rejected the Japanese demands. From 1931 to 1936 this was the first time that 
Nanking showed any evidence of a change in its capitulation policy. 

Question : Are these periods related to an inner political struggle at Nanking? 
If so, what are the main groups involved in this struggle? What social-economic 
forces do these groups represent? 

Answer : Now we shall consider the reasons for Nanking's change of policy. 
Three main factors were responsible for the change : 

(1) The anti-Japanese struggle waged by the Chinese people, the patriotic 
troops, the Communist Party, and the Red Army. This includes the Manchurian 
volunteers, the Nineteenth Route Ai'iuy, Chi Hung-chang's army which fought the 
Japanese in Chahar in 1933, the actions of the Red Army, the student movement, 
and the National Salvation movement of wide masses of the people. 

The Kuomintang thought that Japanese aggression could not be resisted. We 
know that the Manchurian volunteers have resisted and are still resisting. The 



4214 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Kuoniintang thought that the anti-Japanese movements of the people would give 
Japan a pretext to carry its aggressions further. Actually, these actions gave 
such serious blows to Japanese inii>erialism that they dared not easily occupy 
more territory ; they discouraged and disheartened the Japanese. The Kuomin- 
tang thought of the Communists as the eternal, irreconcilable enemy, but did not 
look upon Japan as the enemy. So the Kuomintang sought to exterminate the 
Communists, but the Communist united-front policy acquired such a great influ- 
ence in the country that it forced the Kuomintang to take stock of the success 
of this policy. This was the first cause leading to a change in Nanking's policy 
toward Japan. From this point the Kuomintang began to realize that in the 
people lay the real and whole national strength. Thus it began to feel a little 
more bold and courageous, and its fear of Japan was lessened by this movement. 

(2) Tlie second factor was the international situation. The sympathy of the 
Soviet Union with Cliina in its struggle against Japanese aggression may be taken 
for granted. Also the capitalist world is divided into two rival sectors : the one 
in favor of peace and the status quo ; the other the Fascist aggressors and pro- 
vokers of a new world war. The relative change in British policy in the Far 
East also had much influence on Nanking. From these two factors came the 
third factor conducive to Nanking's change. 

(3) The differentiation in the ruling class and party at Nanking. There are 
several groups and cliques, but fundamentally there are two blocs — the pro- 
Japanese and the anti-Japanese. This ditTerentiation had already begun in 
September 1931. But only with the North China autonomy movement of 1935 
did a kind of public opinion form within Kuomintang areas that China must 
and could resist Japanese aggression. Formerly this opinion was shared by 
only a few persons : now it became more general. At this tinre this opinion 
became so widespread that it exerted an Influence on Nanking politics and policy, 
having a real effect for the first time. 

These three factors, taken together, made the Kuomintang reconsider its 
former policy, and obliged Nanking to change from compromise and concession 
to resistance. 

Question : What groups or individuals at Nanking favor or oppose the united 
front? What evidence is there of progress toward the democratization of the 
Nanking government? Do you expect further progress along this line in the 
near future? 

Answer: We come now to the next phase, that of the present and the future. 
The change in Nanking's policy, which began during the Chang Ch'un-Kawagoe 
negotiations, continued and was clearly expressed in the Third Plenary Session 
in February. In this session Kuomintang policy really began to change in 
various fields. After this sessicm the Kuomintang's attitude to Japan became 
stronger, and a policy of internal peace was formally adopted by Nanking, i. e., 
no civil war. This development was closely related to the policy of the Com- 
munist Party, which had long propagated the necessity of centralizing all 
Chinese forces to fight Japan. 

The most needed thing, however, is a change of Kuomintang policy in relation 
to democracy. On this question, Nanking did not resolutely give \w its military 
policy, its dictatorship; this change has not been made by the Kuomintang. 
This is now the most important task — the realization of democratic reform. 
In order to consolidate internal peace and unite the country, democracy is 
the most important requisite. Without it the task of resisting Japanese aggres- 
sion cannot be achieved. So in this period the mass slogans of the movement 
are these: (1) Internal peace; (2) Democracy; (3) Anti-Japanese war — all 
under the general slogan of the national united front and a democratic country. 
In this second period, the three factors noted above as influencing the Kuomin- 
tang's policy will have an increasing influence on the Chinese people. With 
the help of these three factors, we can realize the three slogans. As to the 
groups opposing the united front, these may be considered under three heads : 

(1) On the international side, chiefly Japanese imperialism. But Japan does 
not stand alone. Germany is in this Fascist bloc, and also Italy. They want 
to induce the Chinese ruling class to join their front. They want China not 
only as a colony but also as a force to fight against the peace front. This is 
the first menacing factor. 

(2) The pro-Japanese clique within the Chinese ruling class, and Trotskyism 
in the social sphere. They fought and are fighting against the united front 
policy and the three main slogans. This is the second factor of danger. 

(3) The danger of irresolute, wavering elements. These exist in the ruling 
class and in society ; they agree with the principle of fighting Japan, but not 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4215 

with giving democratic rights to the people. Their diflficulty is that they have 
a foot on two different boats ; in the end they will either he drowned or else 
will stand with both feet on the Japanese lioat. This is the element which 
provoked the students to fight at Shih Ta in Peiping on May 4, and which keeps 
the National Salvation leaders in prison. Yanc Ta-K'noi of Shih Ta (Peiping 
Normal University) is one of these elements. 

These three groups occupy virtually the same standpoint. They are opposed 
to the united front policy of the Chinese people. Whether the tasks or slogans 
can be realized depends on whether the anti-Japanese elements, the democrats 
and liberals, all those who are for consolidation can overcome these three kinds 
of opponents. If so the slogans can be realized, if not. * * * The outcome 
will be decided by the struggle between these two forces. 

As to how the struggle between these two is proceeding, it should be observed 
that the anti-Japanese front has taken the first steps toward success. The main 
feature is that China was prevented from entering the Fascist front, and turned 
to the anti-F'ascist front. On this point Japan has been defeated. The Com- 
munist Party has done all in its power to prevent China from entering the 
Fascist front. This was expressed in the long period of its work before the 
Sian coup, in its efforts for the concentration and centralization of all Chinese 
forces in the united front. It was also expressed in the peaceful solution of the 
Sian incident, instead of exploiting it on the lower plane of trying to create an 
advantage for ourselves in the civil war. It was further expressed in the 
actions taken by the Communist Party after Sian, directed toward the uniting 
of all Chinese forces to fight Japan. 

Question : What political advantages w^ere gained by foregoing the possi- 
bility of forming a united Northw'estern Army during the Sian incident and 
after? 

Answee: In the first place, China did not enter the Fascist front. Secondly, 
tlie work of unification of all patriotic forces in China to fight Japan achieved 
the first step toward success. Only by such a policy can China be saved. 

Question : Does not acceptance of Nanking as leader of the national forces 
tend to confuse the students and other mass organizations? AVhat lines of action 
can be laid down to avoid this difficulty? 

Answer : We are convinced that the students and masses will see clearly the 
whole situation and will have no doubt of the success of the Communist policy. 
The masses will have no doubt about the question of leadership. The leader 
depends not on the weight of forces, but by the program and the efforts which 
will be made by this leader. The Communist Party does not have its own 
partial interest to serve. It only has the interests of the majority of the people, 
of the nation, the toiling masses. If the fight will succeed, if Japan is turned 
back, if events move in this direction it means that the movement is under the 
leader.ship of the Communist Party. The way pointed out by the Communist 
Party cannot be obstructed by any kind of force. If the whole nation goes the 
way of the Communist Party program, then the iron wall of the enemy front 
will be broken. Whether it be Japanese influence, the pro-Japanese groups, or 
the wavering elements — one and all will be destroyed by the struggle of the 
people led by the Communist Party. The life of these elements will not be long. 
We, not they, will have the long life. Our American friends will see the result. 

Qi'ESTioN : In the student elections at Yenching after the Sian incident, the 
left forces seemed in doubt as to what course to pursue. They did not strongly 
contest the election and as a result the reactionary students obtained control of 
the higher offices in the union. More recently, a meeting of Yenching student 
union delegates, called by the new leadership, voted to withdraw from the 
Peiping Student Union. 

Answer : Such conditions were the result of one side of the Sian incident. 
In the beginning this was an anti-Cliiang-Kai-shek uprising— a feature that 
changed only after the efforts made by us. Later it was converted into general 
union, under the acknowledged authority of Chiang Kai-shek ; and it was the 
Red Army which thus converted mutiny into consolidation. By this move the 
Communists did not capitulate, but on the contrary Communist influence and 
strength have greatly enlarged over the bigger part of China. At first sight, it 
may .seem that Red influence at Yenching has diminished ; but this is not really 
true. In point of fact, Red influence and authority are not decreasing but are 
increasing in many other cities, places, and universities throughout the country. 

Question : May not Britain be strengthening China as against Japan to 
prevent war and protect her interests, and by balancing one against the other 
utilize them both against the Soviet Union? Could not this also envisage a 



4216 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Fascist military dictatorship at Nanlcing that miglit later attempt to crush the 
Chinese Communists? 

Answer : The strengthening of British influence in China is a contradictory 
phenomenon of today. In the fight against Japan, because of China's colonial 
position, it is possible for a third Power to strengthen its position in China. Can 
it then be said that this is pushing the tiger out the front door and letting 
the wolf in the back door? No; that would not be correct. This question must 
be treated differently. 

Japan cannot be considered as the same imperialist Power as Britain. One is 
tied up with the aggressive front, the other is not. To treat them equally would 
not be right. If we treated them as equal imperialist Powers, we would in the 
end have to light them both, or have to fight all imperialism at once. This would 
be wrong and dangerous. It is a conclusion drawn only by Trotskyists, that we 
must fight against all imperialists. On its face it seems very revolutionary, but 
it really drives Britain to the side of Japan ; it is making a net to catch yourself 
with. 

The policy of the Communist Party is just the opposite. We must get help 
to fight Japan from any country which opposes it. We know from experience 
that if China is subjugated by the Fascist Powers, as in the case of Manchuria, 
there is little value to be gained from Trotsky's beautiful phrases. As to the 
help extended by other imperialist Powers to China, this must be different from 
that of the Japanese. The policy of such Powers must be different from that of 
Japan. Principally it must differ on this point, that China's sovereignty must be 
preserved. 

Formerly Great Britain was the leader in the crusade against the Soviet 
Union, the holy task of the British.Empire was to fight against Bolshevism. Now 
Germany and Japan are taking over this task, and Britain is changing its attitude 
toward the Soviet Union. England now adopts a conservative policy of main- 
taining its own position. Although Britain does not like the Soviet Union, yet 
this situation means Britain cannot like Germany and Japan very much. Of 
course, the Anglo-Saxon people have always prided themselves on their freedom 
of thought. They can have any kin<l of thought they like, but in the end tliey 
must come to the conclusion that it it better to preserve their privileges with 
the help of the Soviet Union. Thinking is not always the same as acting. 

It is impossible for Britain to establish the kind of Far Eastern balance of 
power which you have outlined. It is true that Britain long ago adopted the 
balance of power policy and has traditionally followed it. But if two sides of 
the balance are unequal, it is necessary to add here and subtract there in order 
to achieve a balance. Under contemporary world conditions, any such balance 
can only be temporary. In Europe, Britain also wants to establish a balance, 
but tlie Fascist I'owers may be depended upon to destroy any balance that is set 
up. To help itself, Britain is obliged to help the democratic forces. In some 
cases, because of the rapid advance of the Fascist Powers, Britain must utilize 
anti-Fascist forces. So it cannot obstruct the growth of the revolutionary anti- 
Fascist forces. The policy of compromise, of balance of power, allows the revo- 
lutionary forces to grow. The example of France and Spain well illustrates this 
process. In these two countries there exist certain pro-Fascist forces, but it is 
too dangerous for Britain to permit these elements to get power. Although 
England does not like the united-front governments, it must somehow cooperate 
with them. There are many contradictions in British policy. Its compromise 
procedure also helps the Fascists rise, but the flood of Fascism carries the revo- 
lutionary wave up with it and thereby the Soviet boat floats higher. 

The same reasoning holds true in the case of China. Britain may wish to 
set up a balance in the Far East, but Japan wants to dismember China. To es- 
tablish a balance, Britain must adopt the policy of uniting China. If it helps to 
unite China, that is good. With the realization of the united front, the uniting 
of the country, the cessation of civil war, there is a great opportunity for China's 
free development. How can .aou prevent the growth of the Chinese revolutionary 
movement under these circumstances? 

The situation has some analogy to the position of France in Spain. The 
Huangp'u clique faces two enemies — the Conununist Party and Japan. If it 
forms an alliance with Japan to fight the Communists, then it plays the part of 
Franco. As in SL)ain, there would be a civil war of the revolutionary forces 
against the Huangp'u clique, i. e.. Franco. If the Huangp'u clique wants to 
fight Japan determinedly, then it must use the unified strength of the Chinese 
nation. Then it must unite with the Communist Party. So it cannot obstruct 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4217 

the growth of the Communist Party. Either way, the influence of the Communist 
Party will increase. 

As to a Kuomintang military dictatorship, it is very clear that from September 
IS, 1931, to now Nanking has always been a military dictatorship. In the first 
period, there was dictatorship plus a pro-Japanese policy. Now that it has 
changed its foreign policy, it must also change its internal policy. It is im- 
possible for the Kuomintang at one and the same time to suppress the people 
and fight against Japan. It may he true that Nanking is not deeply and per- 
manently committed to an anti-Japanese policy. There is not yet the anti- 
Japanese war, not yet democracy. This can only be a temporary situation. The 
present period bears a transitional character : it is passing from one situation 
to another. We are now in the midst of this transitional period. 

The same holds true in the world at large. So it is possible to ob.serve many 
unhealthy phenomena. In China we see the arrest and trial of the National 
Salvation leaders, the suppression of the mass movement, the remnants of the 
old policy not yet fully given up. On the other side is the struggle of the healthy 
trend against" the evil remnants. It is not necessary to be over-anxious be- 
cause we can see the other side. Look at the struggle that is going on objectively ; 
this struggle is the specific character of this period. If some Kuomintang mem- 
bers maintain the old policy and don't want to change, they are free to adopt 
this attitude. But the new anti-Japanese, democratic forces are growing up, 
and will call a halt to the activities of these people. 

Mr. BissoN. May I extend my remarks on this question of the trip 
to Yenan ? 

Senator Eastlaxd. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. The trip to Yenan was part of a general study of far- 
eastern political conditions, I was making that year. 

Senator Eastland. Are you reading that? 

Mr. BissoN. I am referring to a paper that I have in front of me. 

Senator EAS^rLAND. AAlio wrote that? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

It was part of a general field of study of far-eastern political con- 
ditions that I was making that year. I was making it under the 
auspices of a Rockfeller Research grant given to me as a member of 
the research staff of the Foreign Policy Association. 

The importance of Yenan in the international and the political 
picture of the Far East at that time was very great. The major politi- 
cal issue at that time concerned relations between the Nationalists 
and the Chinese Communists. 

In Japan where I went first, the Japanese were very interested in 
this relationship. I was in Japan for 2 or 3 months until the first 
part of the year studying political conditions there. I then went on 
into Korea for a week or so, then into ISIanchuria for another week 
or two and came into north China at sometime toward the end of 
March 1937. 

I visited the Nationalist capital of Nanking in March to April 
1937, and then wanted also to visit the Chinese Communist capital 
to complete my study of political conditions in the Far East. 

By undertaking this trip to Yenan I was carr^dng through the pur- 
pose for which the Rockefeller Foundation made the research grant. 
This was one of the vital areas of the far-eastern political develop- 
ments at that time and it was necessary for me to visit it if my re- 
search trip was to be complete. As a matter of fact, at these inter- 
views we were told by the Chinese Communist leaders that negotia- 
tions were going on for the conclusion of a truce between the two 
sides in fear of a Japanese attack. So that when we came out of 
Yenan we were able to confirm reports that up to that time had only 



4218 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

been reports and rumors. In other words, I was more sure of my 
data on one of tlie more crucial issues in the Far East at this time. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Does that complete your statement ? 

Mr. BissoN. Except to say that as a result of this year's field study 
I published a book, Japan in China, This is a whole volume. I sug- 
gest that the connnittee should indicate that there was not just a trip 
to Yenan. This was a general study of the Far East resulting in a 
book published 6 or 8 months later. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Will you leave a copy of that book with the com- 
mittee for study ? 

Mr. BissoN. It is my only copy. It is an out-of-print book now. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. We will return it. I know it is out of print. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; certainly. 

May I say the war in China broke out during the middle of this year. 
It interrupted my trip to South China which I was intending to make 
that year. The Japanese occupied North China. 

Most of this book was written in manuscript while the Japanese were 
occupying Peking. I had to smuggle the manuscript out of Peking 
under the eyes of the Japanese and through Japan in order to bring it 
home. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I have a few questions, Mr. Chainnan. 

While you were in Yenan, did you address a mass meeting? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Who else spoke at that mass meeting? 

Mr. BissoN. My remembrance is that Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Lattimore 
also spoke. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Philip Jaffe and Owen Lattimore? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Senator Eastland. What was the object of the mass meeting? 

Mr. BissoN. The object of the mass meeting was to meet the western 
guests and to let the Chinese Army see us and become aware of the 
fact that we were among them. 

Senator Eastland. You mean the Communist army see you ? 

Mr. BissoN. The troops in command is what I am saying. 

Senator Eastland. It was a Communist army, was it not? 

Mr. BissoN. The Chinese Communist troops ; yes. 

Senator Eastland. Say that then. Go ahead. 

Mr. SouRwiNE, Was Chu Teh one of the speakers ? 

Mr. BissoN. He was. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you recall anyone else who spoke there? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you speak in Chinese ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you speak in English? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Who translated it for you ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember. It was one of our local inter- 
preters. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you see any of the other Caucasians out of Ihe 
four who composed your party while you were in Yenan? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; there were two other persons there, Mrs. Edgar 
Snow — and one reason why Mr. Snow wanted us to go in was because 
he wanted us to bring his wife up. She was there. That was one 
reason why we cooperated in making the contacts, _ 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4219 

The other person there was Agnes Smedley. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Were there many foreigners, foreign to Yenan, non- 
Comniiinists? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember any others. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Wasn't the ph^ce full of tourists? 

Mr. BissoN. The place was not full of tourists. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you see any missionaries while you were there? 

Mr. Bissox. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know Mr. Lattimore had testified before 
this committee under oath that there were a lot of tourists around 
when you were there ? 

Mr. BissoN. A lot of tourists ? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. There were a lot of tourists in 

Mr. SouRwixE. Did you know he so testified? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I just wondered if you had known it. You did not 
see any missionaries while you were there ? 

Mr. .BissoN. I did not. 

Mr. SouRwixE. When yx)u left, did anyone give you or any mem- 
bers of your party messages to be taken to other persons in other 
places ? 

Mr. Bissox. I think probably there were messages we took back to 
people in Peking. 

Mr. SouRWixE. As a matter of fact, communications were very bad 
and they crowded around you to try to get you to take messages, did 
they not? 

Don't accept my word for that. Tell me what happened. 

Mr. Bissox. I am not certain of that. I don't remember any crowd- 
ing around us. I am willing to say we probably took some messages. 

Senator Eastlaxd. Regardless of whether they crowded around 
you or not, did a number of people attempt to ask you to carry mes- 
sages out for them ? 

Mr. Bissox. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwixE. That is all. 

Senator Eastlaxd. About how many ? 

Mr. Bissox. I suppose two. 

Senator Eastlaxd. Then other people contacted other members of 
the party, did they not? 

Mr. Bissox. Other people ? I am not sure who you mean. 

Senator Eastlaxd. Other Chinese contacted other members of your 
party to take messages out? 

Mr. Bissox. I do not remember the Chinese 

Senator Eastlaxd. What did you say at that mass meeting ? 

Mr. Bissox. As I remember, I said the same thing I had said in a 
meeting at 

Senator Eastlaxd. I did not ask you what you said at a meeting 
before. Just tell me what you said at that mass meeting. 

]\Ir. Bissox. I indicated that the lull in Japanese-Chinese relations 
at that time wa?, in my opinion, false : that the Japanese were very 
likely preparing an active invasion of China. Therefore, I advocated 
that this group and other groups in China should attempt to settle 
their differences in order to present a firm and effective defense against 
possible Japanese attack. 



4220 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

May I extend my remarks? May I amplify what I said? 

Senator Eastland. Wait just a minute. I will let you extend your 
remarks. 

That was the line that the Communists were using then, was it not, 
for the Nationalists ? 

Mr. BissoN. That was the line most Chinese were using. 

Senator Eastland. Answer my question. That was the Commu- 
nist line? 

Mr. BissoN. That was the line that almost all Chinese were using. 

Senator Eastland. Was it the Communist line? Answer the ques- 
tion "Yes" or "No." 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Fanelli. Answer the question. 

Senator Eastland. Now, you desire to extend your remarks. Do so. 

Mr. BissoN. I want to extend my remarks on two points here. 

The political issue that was paramount at that period was the issue 
"Could China defend herself against Japanese attack if it came?" 

Therefore, in my talks in China, wherever it was, that was the cru- 
cial problem that I was dealing with. I remember a talk that I gave 
in Peking maybe a month or 2 before, before this Peking group. I 
think you can verify this to some extent, at least through recollection 
in regard to Col. David Barrett, who was the American military at- 
tache there, who I remember attended that meeting. He was an old 
friend of mine, and we had been in school together. 

At that meeting I said, "There is a lull at present. I think it is 
deceptive. I think the necessities are that all groups in China get 
together." 

On that occasion I emphasized particularly the southwestern groups 
because there were a couple of groups involved here. 

I have one other point ; that is, that while it is true that the Com- 
munists were trying to get China united at that time, it is also true 
that sentiment all over China was in favor of unity at that time. It 
was growling very strong in Nanking. Official policy there was veer- 
ing toward 

Senator Eastland. I want you to be fair with the committee. Ar- 
rangements for you to go into Communist areas were made by Com- 
munists. You were one of the few people who got to go into Yenan, 
were you not ? 

Mr. BissoN. There were 

Senator Eastland. You were one of the few Caucasians that got to 
go there, were you not ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; although I would not say they were few. There 
was a considerable group that went. 

Senator Eastland. You testified you only saw two there. 

Mr. BissoN. Others went later. 

Senator Eastland. Agnes Smedley is one of them. She is buried 
in Communist China, is she not? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know. 

Senator Easti^nd. You know she is a Communist. You saw a 
Communist there. You met the chief or the head of the Conununist 
Party in China who is now the dictator of China. They entertained 
you and they gave a mass meeting, had a big mass meeting for you to 
speak to. To be perfectly frank, you were considered a pro-Commu- 
nist, were you not, by the Chinese? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4221 

Mr. BissoN. By no means. We were considered as people who had 
come in and were visiting that area. They had not seen western people 
for many years. 

Senator Eastland. They could not get in. "Wliy was it you could 
get in ? 

Mr. BissoN. Other people could get it if they wanted to get in. 
It was not an impossible feat. 

Senator Eastl.\nd. It was practically an impossible feat, as you 
well know, and if you wanted to be entirely frank, sir, you would 
admit it, because you know that is true. It was an impossible feat 
except for fellow travelers, those who were considered sympathetic 
to communism, whether they were Communists or not. 

I am not accusing you of being a member of the Communist Party. 
I do not know whether you were or not, but isn't a fact now, that they 
considered you sympathetic to their olDJectives in China and let you 
in, entertained you and gave a mass meeting for j^ou to speak to? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not prepared to say that 

Senator EASTLiVNO. Why ? 

Mr. BissoN. That they considered us sympathizers. 

Senator Eastland. Do you think they would have called a mass 
meeting for somebody to make a speech to take issue with the policies 
of their government ? 

Mr. BissoN. I stand by my original statement. 

Senator Eastland. I want you to answer that question, though. 

Mr. BissoN. What is the question ? 

Senator Eastland. In dictatorships, do they call mass meetings at 
which people speak and take issue with the government ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. The answer is "No." 

Senator Eastland. Of course they do not. Then, if you were not 
considered pro-Communist, why did they call a mass meeting for you 
to address it? 

Mr. BissoN. We were considered guests, western guests who had 
arrived. 

Senator Eastland. They do not call mass meetings for guests to 
take issue with their policies. If they called that for you, it was their 
impression that you were sympathetic with those objectives; is that 
right? 

Mr. BissoN. I see no reason to accept that statement. I was there 
as a political observer and so were the others which were entertained as 
one might expect outsiders would be entertained. 

Senator Eastland. But you certainly do not ask me to believe that 
they called mass meetings for foreigners .to address »and by so doing 
vouch for those f oreignei*s unless they think those foreigners are sym- 
pathetic with their objectives. In fact, that was the object of the mass 
meeting, was it not, to help solidify sentiment behind the policies of 
the Communist government ? 

Mr. Bisson. I do not see that that was the object. The object was 
just as much to show the western guests that were in the city at that 
time. 

Senator Eastland. You have just testified that no dictatorship, 
Communist dictatorship would call a mass meeting to be addressed 
by a foreigner who would take issue with their government. How do 

88348 — 52— pt. 12 13 



4222 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

you square that statement that you made a minute ago with your 
statements now? 

Mr. BissoN. I see no real contradiction. We were not there — I did 
not intend to take issue with their policy. 

Senator Eastland. Of course you did not intend to take issue with 
their policy. 

Mr. BissoN. I was willino; to be a friendly guest. I was interested 
in observing what I could see. I was not interested in disputing their 
policies. What I was anxious to do was to talk to them, to have 
them  

Senator Eastland. You made a speech at the mass meeting and you 
are 100 percent right when you say you were not there to take issue 
with their policies. 

Mr. BissON. I was there to find facts. 

Senator Eastland. Wait a minute. Is it not true that mass meet- 
ing was called because you were sympathetic with those policies? 

Mr. BissoN. No ; I would not accept that. 

Senator Eastland. You may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, did you ever make any protests when 
China was attacked by the Connnunists in the period of 1946 and 
following? 

Mr. BissoN. When China was attacked? 

Mr. Morris. When the Cliinese Government was attacked by the 
Chinese armies from the north, did you protest on behalf of China 
on that occasion ? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't understand the idea of the Nationalists 

Mr. Fanelli. If you understand the question, answer it. 

Mr. Morris. The Nationalist Government was attacked by the Chi- 
nese Communists, was it not? 

Mr. BissoN. The Communists were perhaps attacked by the Na- 
tionalists. 

Mr. Morris. You defended your action, your previous association 
with Communists, on the grounds that you were interested in the 
integrity and the defense of the Chinese Government. 

Hasn't that been your defense to your Connnunist associations all 
along? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't understand that question. I am very sorry 
about this. 

Ml'. Morris. You do know, however, there was a w^ar between the 
Chinese Government and the Communist armies? 

Mr. BissoN. There w^as a civil war going on. 

Mr. Morris. Did you express any support for the Chinese Nation- 
alist Government for the period of 1946 to 1950? 

Mr. Bisson. I do not think so. 

Mr. Morris. You expi-essed no concern whatever for the Chinese 
Government under those circumstances? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not think so. 

Senator Eastland. Why ? 

Mr. BissoN. For nnich of this period, I was in Government service 
and could not express an opinion. 

Senator Eastl^vnd. When you were in Government service, what 
about that? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not understand. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4223 

Senator Eastland. Yoii say "for miicli of the period I was in Gov- 
ernment service and could not express an opinion." 

Now, the time you were not in Government service 

Mr. BissoN. I was in Government service in 1946 and 1947. 

Senator Eastland. The time yon were not in Government service 
now. 

Mr. BissoN. I was engaged in writing a book in 1947-48 and w^rote 
no articles at all at that time, either on Japan or China. 

Senator Eastland. Yon were never hesitant to express an opinion 
at any other time, were yon? 

Mr. BissoN. Senator, what I am trying to say is that on some of 
these other occasions, I was regnlarly writing for periodicals when 
I was with the Institute of Pacific Relations and when I was with 
the Foreign Policy Association. 

In these later years I was not in that position. I wrote virtually no 
articles. I was either in Government service or writing a book. 

Senator Eastland. When is it that a Government official cannot 
express an opinion? I thought we had a bunch of pro-Communist 
statements coming out of the State Department during that time, pro- 
Chinese Communists. 

Mr. BissoN. I assure you I could not write articles on the Chinese 
political situation from the Government section in occupation head- 
quarters. I was not permitted so to write. 

The Chairman. From where? You say you were not permitted, 
from where ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was on duty as an official in General MacArthur's 
headquarters in Tokyo in the first part of the period referred to. 

The Chairman. You were not permitted to write ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was doing official duty, and as a Government official 
I was not engaged in writing articles. If I wanted to write an 
article 



The Chairman. Your answer, which I caught, was you were not 
permitted to write. Is that true ? What is the fact ? 

Mr. BissoN. Well, put it this way : That a Government official • 

The Chairman. You are under oath ; are you not ? 

Mr. BissON. Yes. A Government official in that capacity would 
not normally b'e writing articles for periodicals. If you say "could he 
never write an article ?'' the answer would be that, if he went through 
channels and they got special permission and his article was read 
properly, that article might be published. 

I did not go through any such effort to get an article published at 
that time. I was bus_v with my official duties. 

The Chairman. You departed from your first answer. You said 
in your first answer : "I was not permitted to write." 

Mr. BissoN. I do not consider that a departure. 

The Chairman. You have left that entirely and you have smudged 
that over with another statement. 

Mr. BissoN. I do not consider that a departure. 

The Chairman. I do consider it a de])arture. Not being permitted 
to write is one thing and not writing is another. 

Mr. BissoN. A Government official 

The Chairman. I am not asking for any answer except to clarify 
your first answer. 



4224 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Do you want to stand on your first answer, or on the rest that you 
have stated ? 

Mr. BissoN. Let me state it this way : A Government official did 
not normally engage in articles for periodicals. On special occa- 
sions he might receive permission. That is the testimony I should like 
to make to that question. 

The Chairman. Then you want to recede from your first answer 
you were "not permitted to write" ? 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Will you tell the committee what your job was at 
Tokyo in the period terminating in 1947 ? 

Mr. BissON. I was acting as Special Assistant to the Chief of Gov- 
ernment Section. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson,*did you negotiate with Mr. Holland in 
connection with the possibility of your taking up IPR. work when you 
terminated your Government contract at Tokyo ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not so remember. I may have. 

Mr. Morris. JNIr. Mandel, will you identify this letter? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a document from the files of the 
IPR dated August 21, 1946, addressed to Mr. T. A. Bisson, with the 
typed signature of William L. Holland, secretary general. It is a 
photostat of a carbon copy of a letter. 

Mr. Morris. Do you recall having received that letter ? Will you 
read the first paragraph, please ? 

Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

This is just a note to say hello and to ask whether you have now had enough 
of Mac-Arthur and are in a mood to thinlj of IPR work airain. I have been won- 
dering whether you have made any detinite plans yet about returning and about 
working on any particular project for the IPR. Though there's no great rush 
I would be interested to hear your ideas regarding this, so that I can make pre- 
liminary arrangements about finances. As you know, I am ready to request 
a grant that will enable you to work for 6 months on a project coming within 
the general scope of our international research program. 

Mr. Morris. Does reading this rather refresh your recollection as 
to whether Mr. Holland did write this? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Will that be received, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes, 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 720" and is as 

follows:) 

Exhibit No. 720 

August 21, 1946. 
Mr. T. A. BissoN, 

c/o Mrs. T. A. Bisson, 40 Richards Rd., 
Port Washington, L. I., New York. 

Dear Art: This is just a note to say hello and to ask whether you have now 
had enough of MacArthur and are in a mood to thinli of IPR work again. I 
have been wondering whether you have made any definite plans yet about 
returning and about working on any particular project for the IPR. Though 
there's no great rush, I would be interested to hear your ideas regarding this, 
so thai I can make preliminary arrangements about finances. As you know, 
I am ready to request a grant that will enable you to work for six months on 
a project coming within the general scope of our International Research Pro- 
gram. I assume you will want to write on some aspect of .Japanese politics or 
economics, but it would be a good idea if you could submit a brief outline of 
two alternative studies which I could present to Sansom and the research advis- 
ers. I would hope to have the project done under the nominal auspices of the 
American Council even though it is financed by the International Research 
Fund. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4225 

If you preferred to work part-time on some other job, I don't believe there 
would be any objections, although we would still hope that you could finish your 
report within nine months, and could also make some part of it available in the 
form of a Conference paper by April 30, 1947. 

Will you let me have your reactions on this? 

I wrote Harold Quigley recently suggesting that he with Miriam Farley, 
Herbert Norman and yourself might organize an informal study group in Tokyo 
to meet occasionally with some of the Japanese who might take the lead in a new 
Japanese Council of the IPR. I know you don't have much time for these extra- 
curricular activities but I do hope you can lend a hand. 

We greatly miss not having more news from you and I wish j'ou could take 
the time to write a general newsletter which you could share with your family 
and the IPR staff. How about it? 

With best wishes. 
Sincerely yours, 

William L. Holland, Seoretary-General. 

P. S. — Under separate cover I am sending you a copy of the announcement. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Mr. H. H. Fisher, of the Hoover Research 
Library ? 

Mr. BissoN, Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Have you had any negotiations with him for employ- 
ment ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this? 

Mr. Mandel. It is a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter, the 
carbon being taken from the files of the IPR. It is dated May 20, 
1947, addressed to Mr. T. A. Bisson, with the typed signature of 
William L. Holland, secretary general. 

Mr. Morris. I offer you this letter and ask you if you will read the 
first paragraph and answer whether or not you can recall having 
received this letter. Read that aloud, please. 

Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

Welcome back to the land of the loyalty tests ! We are all looking forward 
to seeing you, and I hope that you can spare us a day or two at the office 
before you go on your vacation. I hope you will also take a couple of days to 
visit some of the university people at P>erkeley and Stanford. I have written 
H. H. Fisher, director of the Hoover Library at Stanford, asking him to see 
you and tell you something of his Far East research program. It is possible 
that you may see some suitable opening for work there next year. At Stanford, 
you might also try to see Claude Buss if he is still around. 

Mr. Morris. Can you recall if Mr. Holland wrote that letter ? 
Mr. BissoN. I never said I do not recall. 
Senator EastLx\nd. Do you recall? 
Mr. BissoN. I do. 

Mr. Morris. Will that be received? 
Senator Eastland. It will be admitted. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 721," and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 721 

May 20, 1947. 
Mr. T. A. Bissox, 

% San Francisco Institute of Pacific Relations, 
Jfll Market Street, San Francisco, California. 
Dear Art : Welcome back to the land of the loyalty tests ! We are all looking 
forward to seeing you and I hope that you can spare us a day or two at the office 
before you go on your vacation. I hope you will also take a couple of days to 
visit some of the university people at Berkeley and Stanford. I have written 
H. H. Fisher, Director of the Hoover Library at Stanford, asking him to see you 
and tell you something of his Far Eastern research program. It is possible that 



4226 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

you may see some suitable opening for work there next year. At Stanford, you 
might also try to see Claufle Buss, if he is still around. At Berkeley, I hope you 
will see Woodhridge Bingham and George McCune in the History Department. 
George is writing a conference paper for us on political developments in Korea. 
If you get time, you might also see Conliffe and Kerner. 

Staley may want you to talk to the IPR group in San Francisco and I hope you 
can do so. You may not have heard that the IPU in San Francisco is being 
amalgamated into a San Francisco World Affairs Council and, as a result, there 
is a good deal of bad feeling between the San Francisco and New York offices. 
Carter and I will be interested to know what you hear about all this. Tlie main 
point of disagreement at present is tlie recent n)ove by the San Francisco people 
pressing for a national merger of the American IPK and the FPA plus, possibly, 
some other organizations. As you can imagine, there is a good deal of resistance 
to the idea from many quarters. 

All the best, 
Y'ours, 

William L. Holland, Secretary-General. 

Mr. Morris. You worked for the Board of Economic Warfare; did 
you not ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. Morris. For what period of time? 

Mr. Bissox. For the period from January 1942 to May 1943. 

Mr. Morris. What was your assignment there ? 

Mr. BissoN. My assignment there was to analyze the economic 
weakness and vuhierability of Japan in order to enable advantage 
to be taken of such weaknesses as we could detect in conducting the 
war against Jaj)an. 

Mr. Morris. ^AHiile you worked in the Board of Economic Warfare, 
did you supply material to the IPR which you have obtained in your 
work for that Board? 

Mr. BissoN. While I was working at the Board 

Mr. M(jrris. Did you supply the IPR with information and ma- 
terial from the Board of Economic Warfare? 

Mr. Bissox. I might liave; yes. 

Mr. Morris. AVould you tell'us about it? 

Mr. BissON. I do not remember any specific details. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you identify this letter? 

j\Ir. Mandel. This is a photostat of a memorandum from the files 
of tlie IPR dated September 14, 1942, headed "MF, WWL from RB, 
and AVLH." 

Mr. BissoN. May I see that? 

]Mr. JNIoRRis. You may see the letter. 

Mr. BissoN. This is the photostat that you have just mentioned? 

Mr. Morris. I have the photostat. Will you read the first para- 
graph ? 

Mr. BissoN. (reading) : 

Bisson has returned Miriam's interesting draft on recent developments in 
Japanese-occupied southeast Asia. Obviously reflecting the line taken in his own 
BEW job, he thinks current studies are less valuable than fundamental anlysis 
of the prototypes of recent Japanese activity — Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, 
north and central China. Such studies, he maintains, would imply current prac- 
tices. He and Peake predicted a month ago the Greater F'ast Asia Ministry. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know who MF is ? 

Mr. Bisson. I should think that would be Miriam Farley. 

Mr. Morris. And WWL? 

Mr. Bisson. William Lockwood. 

Mr. Morris. WLH? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4227 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Holland. 

Mr. MoRBis. And RB? 

Mr. BissoN. Robert Barnett, I should suspect. 

Mr. ]MoRRis. It was the common practice that you know of the IPR 
stall" to use initials in exchanging memoranda? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

May I make a comment on this, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. As I read that first paragraph, and so far as my mem- 
ory goes, this was not a case of my sending Government material to 
Miss Farley. This was a case of Miss Farley writing a draft about 
Japanese developments in southeast Asia. 

Mr. Morris. You do recall this particular incident i' 

Mr. BissoN. Let me continue. 

Mr. IMoRRis. I am not going to direct a line of questions to that, and 
it is not related to the previous question. 

I do want you to recall the fact that Miss Farley did send a draft to 
you. 

Mr. BissoN. You have her private memoranda ? 

Mr. Morris. That is right. 

Mr. BissoN. May I say 

Mr. Morris. It has nothing to do with Government, and there is 
no indication it has anything to do with BEW material. 

Mr. BissoN. I see. 

Senator Eastland. Did you send BEW material to Miss Farley? 

Mr. BissoN. I did not. That is what startled me. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read the last two paragraphs? 

Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

They have supplied no new information, which is a disappointment, but not 
one wiiich should surprise us. 

Who is "they"? 

Mr. Morris. The first two preceding paragraphs deal with "Peake 
and Bisson." 

Then the other one says : "On page 14, Peake and Bisson suggest." 
The next one reads: ''On page 16, the terms 'rigid' and later 'whole- 
sale' seem too extreme to Peake and Bisson." 

The last or next to the last paragraph reads : 

They have supplied no new information which is a disappointment — but not 
one which should surprise us. 

Read the last paragraph, please. 
Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

Bisson says that Jessup has fousht through red tape and succeeded in getting 
a whole file of BEW Pattern of Occupation Reports for use at Columbia. Bisson 
sees no reason wliy the IPR should not have the stuff, too. The approach should 
be made through Jessup who now knows the ropes. 

Mr. Morris. I am asking you if that refreshes your recollection, or 
whether or not you did supply IPR with BEW material. 
Mr. Bisson. 1 did. but I would like to make a comment. 
The Chairman. Let's straighten that out, Senator Eastland. 
This does refresh your recollection ? That is the question. 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

The Chairman. You did furnish the material ? 
Mr. Bisson. Yes. 



4228 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Do you have any comment to make ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. The comment is that this was not material that 
referred to policy matters. This happened to be a study that I was 
making myself. It was merely a collection of Japanese techniques 
in regard to occupation documents of all kinds. 

When the Japanese were in Manchuria, what kind of documents 
came out in terms of their methods of occupying and controlling that 
area. The same for other parts of China, for southeast Asia, a tech- 
nical series of documents with no comment, no policy recommenda- 
tions, no policy treatment here at all. 

So, under those circumstances, it would be quite possible for a Gov- 
ernment arrangement to be made with a private organization that the 
documents go to. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will this document be received in the 
record as the document that refreshed the witness' recollection on 
that series of questions ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 722" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 722 

(Handwritten:) Barnett 

W. Holland 

700 Jackson Place NW., 
Washington, D. C, September 14, 19Jf2. 
MF 

WWL from RB 
WLH 

Bisson has returned from Miriam's interesting draft on recent developments in 
Japanese-occupied Southeast Asia. Obviously reflecting the line taken in his 
own BEW job, he thinks current studies are less valuable than fundamental 
analyses of the prototypes of recent Japanese activity — Manchuria, Inner Mon- 
golia, North and Central China. Such studies, he maintains, would imply cur- 
rent practices. He and Peake predicted a month ago the Greater East Asia 
Ministry. 

From our point of view, his suggestion helps little. We've done most of the 
descriptive job. Comprehensive reanalysis calls for staff which even BEW with 
its bulging expense accounts cannot snag. 

Peake and Bisson made several comments on points of fact. On page 2, they 
suggest that the Japanese are less intransigent than they sound and really hope 
for a negotiated peace. This is a Gripsholm opinion of considerable generality. 
The Japs treated Sassoon tough, Init held out sweet hopes to other businessmen. 

On page 14, Peake and Bisson suggest that properties are not confiscated out- 
right but expropiated legally and held in trust in accordance with The Hague 
rules of war. This is a question of fact upon which they are informed and we are 
not. However, as other cases of similar Japanese practices, they cite Japanese 
dealings with Chinese owners in China. I cannot agree in the inaportance 
which they attach to pro forma practices of the Japanesi\ The test of their 
importance would appear when the Japs began to retire for good. Where this 
has happened in China, property has been ruthlessly destroyed. 

On page 16, the terms "rigid" and later "wholesale" seem too extreme to Peake 
and Bisson. 

They have supplied no new information which is a disappointment — but not one 
which should surprise us. 

Bisson says that JcsHup has fought through red tape succeeded in geH:ing a 
whole file of BEW Pattern of Occupation Reports for use at Columbia. Bisson 
sees no reason why the IPR should not have the stuff, too. The approach should 
be made through Jessup who now knows the ropes. 

Mr. Bisson. May I be excused for a few minutes ? 
Senator Eastland. Yes. 
(Short recess.) 



Institute of pacific relations 4229 

Mr, Morris. Mr. Bisson, while you were in Tokyo, did you meet with 
other members of the IPE. in furtlierance of the w^ork of the institute? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. How often did you do that ? 

Mr, Bisson. Well, I would say maybe three or four times. 

Mr, Morris, Who were the people you met with ? 

Mr, BissoN. When Mr, Holland came through, I would meet with 
him, I think he came through once or twice — probably twice while 
I was there, 

Mr, Morris, Who else? 

Mr. BissoN. There were also efforts being made to reorganize the 
old Japanese Council that had been dissolved by the Japanese mili- 
tarists when the war broke out. I remember, it seems to me, attending 
one or two meetings where they were trying to get a group together 
that would not be an official Japanese Council because they could not, 
under the existing circumstances, but they might become an embryo 
for development of a new Japanese Council. 

Mr. Morris, Did you meet with Miriam Farley for that purpose? 

Mr, BissoN, Miriam Farley was also in occupation headquarters. 
We probably met. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet with Herbert Norman for that purpose? 

Mr. BissoN. We might have, yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. How about Harold Quigley ? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes, I should think so, 

Mr, Morris, Will you read the fourth paragraph in the letter of 
August 21, 1946, that has already been introduced in the record? 

Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

I wrote Harold Quigley recently suggesting that he with Miriam Farley, 
Herbert Norman, and yourself might organize an informal study group in 
Tokyo to meet occasionally with some of the Japanese who might take the 
lead in a new Japanese Council of the IPR. I know you don't have much 
time for these extracurricular activities but I do hope you can lend a hand. 

Mr. IMoRRis. Did you meet with members of the Japanese Council ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes, 

Mr, Morris. Will you tell us about that ? 

Mr. BissoN. The only thing I remember about it is that this group 
and some Japanese scholars w^hose names I am sure you will ask and 
I do not think I can recall 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet with Yanaibara ? 

Mr. BissoN. I might have been there. 

Mr. Morris, How about Yokota ? 

Mr, BissoN, Possibly, yes. 

Mr, Morris. Matsukata? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes, 

Mr, Morris. You knew him well ? 

Mr. Bisson, He was one of the members of the old Japanese Coun- 
cil of the IPR. 

Mr. Morris. You knew Matsukata? 

Mr, BissoN, Matsukata, 

Mr. Morris, And Saionji? 

Mr. BissoN. No, I do not remember him, 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever remember meeting him ? 



4230 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. I don't remember meeting him in Tokyo. I think he 
was at the 1936 Yosemite conference. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify this letter, Mr. Mandel? 

Mr. Mandel. Tliis is a photostat of a carbon copy of a letter from 
the files of the IPR dated October 8, 1946, addressed to Mr. T. A. 
Bisson, Government Section, SCAP, APO 500, care of Postmaster, 
San Francisco, Calif., with the typed signature of William L. Holland, 
secretary general. 

Mr. Morris. I offer you this letter and ask you if you will read 
aloud the first paragraph of this letter ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was trying to take a look at the letter. 

Mr. Morris. If you read it aloud, it may refresh your recollection 
and we will not lose time. 

Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

I am most gi-ateful to you for your letter of September 22 containing the very 
intei'esting report on recent developments in the .lapanese IPR. On the whole 
the group strikes me as a very able and progressive one and I hope very much 
that you can unofficially convey my warmest good wishes to them (particularly 
to Yanaibara, Yokota, Matsukata, and Saionji) . Will you also please tell Matsuo 
that I hope he can write me more frequently and let me know if there is any way 
we can assist the new group ; e. g., by supplying more IPR publications. 

Mr. Morris. Does that letter refresh your recollection as to the fact 
you did meet with these Japanese in the formation of a Japanese Coun- 
cil of the IPR? 

Mr. BissoN. I think I indicated in every case, except Mr. Saionji, 
whom I did iiot remember, that I had met with them. Obviously 
I did. 

Mr. Morris. You did that work regularly for the IPR ? 

Mr. BissoN. Regularly. 

Mr. Morris. Tell us how frequently you did it. 

Mr. BissoN. This was one operation to get this group restarted. 
We may have had one or two meetings about it. It was not a regular 
thing. That is why I objected to the term "regular." 

Mr. SouRWiNE. There was not anything irregular about it? 

Mr. BissoN. It was irregular rather than regular. So far as the 
meetings were concerned on this project, that is. 

Mr. Morris. Was the purpose of the committee to determine the 
extent to which you did need these people because very often the files 
do not show? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Will this be received ? 

Senator Eastland. It will be received. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No, 723" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 723 

October 8, 1946. 
Mr. T. A. BissoN, 

Oovcrninent t^iection, S. C. A. P., 
APO 500, c/o Postmaster, Smi Francisco, Calif. 
Dear Art : I am most grateful to you for your letter of September 22 con- 
taining the very interesting report on recent developments in the Japanese IPR. 
On the whole the group strikes me as a very able and progressive one and I hope 
very much that you can unofficially convey my warmest good wishes to them 
(particularly to Yanaibara, Yokota, Matsukata, and Saionji). Will you also 
please tell Matsuo that I hope he can write me more frequently and let me know 
if there is any way we can assist the new group, e. g., by supply more IPR 
publications. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4231 

I am interested to hear of the symposium on current problems and hope you 
can arrange to supply me with two or three copies of the various chapters as 
they are completed. Are they to be in Japanese or in English, and if the latter, 
will any arrangements be made to publish them in Japan? 

I would like you to convey to the new group my earnest hope that they will 
make an early start on one or two projects of fundamental scholarly research, 
preferably not too closely relafed to immediate political issues. You might point 
out that the chances of readmittance to the IPR will be greatly improved if they 
can demonstrate that they are conducting a scholarly research program by well- 
qualified people. Though I can make no promises at this moment, it is con- 
ceivable that we might be able to give some financial assistance next year for 
an important piece of research subject, of course, to the necessary approval of 
SCAP. You will know better than I what subjects are feasible after discussing 
the matter witli the group — but you and Herb Norman and Andrew might keep 
in mind the standing economic history of Japan (or, alternatively, of Japan since 
1868). There may be other noteworthy studies in Japanese sociology, economics, 
or give some consideration to the possibility of completing, perhaps in modified 
form, one or two of the older Japanese Council projects in the International 
Research Program. For instance, Nasu's studies on Japanese agriculture and 
on rural standards of living were never really completed to a point where he 
felt justified in printing it in English, though we did put out a mimeographed 
edition. I fully realize that Nasu may not be the right man now to continue the 
study, but it should be possible to make some arrangement to bring it more up 
to date by including a few chapters on the principal agriculture developments 
during the war years, and also by revising the existing study (parts of which 
were censored by the authorities in 1941). This is something which you might 
discuss with Andrew so that there would be a minimum of overlapping with his 
own study of Japan's agriculture. Another possibility that strikes me as prom- 
ising would be a book of writings on Japanese agrarian problems during the 
past decade, somewhat along the lines of Agrarian China, prepared by Chen 
Han-seng some years ago. 

Another unfinished project which could be considered was one on the Japanese 
family system ; in view of the fact that we have recently published Olga Lang's 
book on the Chinese family, it would be interesting to have a corresponding study 
from Japan based either on the original project or on some other outstanding 
Japanese book in this field. 

Quigley may also have some suggestions for work in the field of political science 
and diplomatic history, but this may get too much into the field of political 
controversy. 

Sincerely yovirs, 

William L. Holland, 

Secretary General. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bisson, did you ever meet with Tung Pi-wu? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Will voii tell us the circumstances? Who was Tung 
Pi-wu? 

Mr. Bisson. He was one of the older members of the Chinese Com- 
munist group at Yenan. He was there when we were in Yenan. 

Mr. Morris. Did he come to the United States later on ? 

Mr. Bisson. He did. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet him at that time ? 

Mr. Bisson, I probably met him in New York ; yes. 

Mr. Morris. What was he doing in New York? 

Mr. Bisson. He was attending the founding conference of the 
United Nations as the Chinese Communist delegate officially 
recognized. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances of your meeting with 
Tung Pi-wu in New York ? 

Mr. Bisson. As well as I remember, he came along with a couple 
of other Chinese who were with him, his aides or something, to the 
IPR, and we had a chat with them. We may even have had lunch with 
the group, I am not sure as to whether we went to lunch. 



4232 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Did you discuss the interest of China with him ? 
Mr. BissoN. I have no recollection as to what was actually discussed 
at that time. It probably concerned his operations at the United Na- 
tions Conference and what he thought of the founding conference. 
Mr. Morris. What did he think of it ? 

Mr. BissoN. His aspects of his trip to the United States, and so on. 
Mr. Morris. What did he think of it? 

Mr. BissoN. I say it probably concerned that. I wouldn't remember 
the details. 

Mr. Morris. Are they the only times you met Tung Pi-wu in New 
York? 
Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever give an expression of support to Ernst 
Thaelmann ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances ? 
Senator Eastland. Repeat that, please. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever give an expression of support to Ernst 
Thaelmann ? Who was he ? 

Mr. BissoN. He was an imprisoned German Communist leader. 
Senator Eastland. He was the head of the Communist Party in 
Germany, was he not ? 

Mr. BissoN. He was imprisoned. 

Senator Eastland. But before he was imprisoned he was the head 
of the Communist Party in Germany ? 

Mr. Bisson. Before he was imprisoned he was. 
Senator Eastland. He had been a candidate for president of the 
Communist Party in Germany, had he not ? 
Mr. BissoN. He had. 

Senator Eastland. Proceed to answer the question. 
Mr. Morris. Did you join in an expression of support to him? 
Mr. BissoN. I would not answer "Yes" to the question as so 
expressed. 

Senator Eastland. What did you do? 

Mr. BissoN. On that occasion, as I remember the details, the daugh- 
ter of the Socialist Prime Minister of Norway was coming to this 
country to ^conduct a general campaign to gain popular support for 
freeing a political prisoner held by Hitler. I went as a member of 
a group to receive her when she came to this country. 
Senator Eastland. Who was the political prisoner ? 
Mr. BissoN. The political prisoner was Mr. Thaelmann. He was 
one of the victims of Hitler's tyranny. 

Senator Eastland. He locked up a Communist agitator who was 
attempting, by revolution, to overthrow his government and set up 
a Communist dictatorship that was subservient to the Soviet Union. 
Mr. Fanelli. There is no quesion there. 
Senator Eastland. Yes, there is. 

And you expressed your support of him ; is that right ? 
Mr. BissoN. Not quite in that way. 

Senator Eastland. You know you expressed your support of him, 
regardless of "not quite that way"? 

Mr. BissoN. I expressed my support of a campaign to get him out 
pf jail under the Hitler regime. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4233 

Senator Eastland. So he could set up a Communist government m 
Germany ? 

Mr. BissoN. That is your interpretation, Mr. Senator. 

Senator Eastland. Is it not yours? Was that not what you 
wanted ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was primarily concerned that this was a symbol of 
political oppression by the Nazis in Germany. 

Senator Eastland. Who else did you intercede for? Hitler had 
thousands of political and racial persecutees in jail in Germany. Did 
you intercede for any of the others ? 

Mr. BissoN. I was generally opposed, yes, to all of them. 

Senator Eastland. Answer my question. Did you intercede for 
any of the others ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. Who ? 

Mr. BissoN. So far as I remember I was 

Senator Eastland. Who was it you interceded for ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not know a specific name. 

Senator Eastland. He had Catholic leaders in prison. Did you 
intercede for any of them ? 

Mr. BissoN. Not that I know of. 

Senator Eastland. He had leaders of the extreme right in prison. 
Did you intercede for any of them ? 

Mr. BissoN. Not that I know of, not by name. 

Senator Eastland. Of course you did not. He had racial persecu- 
tees in prison. Did you specifically intercede for any of them? 

Mr. BissON. Not for a specific individual. 

Senator Eastland. You did intercede specifically for the head of 
the Communist Party in Germany ; did you not ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Senator Eastland. Of course you were not a Communist sympa- 
thizer and were not pro-Communist. You deny all that? 

Mr. BissoN. I do. 

May I say in extension of my remarks here that so far as I remember 
1 engaged on occasion in general acts against the Hitler tyranny. 

Senator Eastland. Of course you did. All Communists did. 

Mr. BissoN. This happened to be one instance. 

Senator Eastland. All Communists did that, but no Communist 
would intercede for the release of the Catholic leadership which was 
anti-Communist. No Communist would intercede for the release of 
the leaders of the extreme right like Count von Plettenberg who were 
in prison. All the Communists all over the world interceded for the 
release of Ernst Thaelmann so he could get up a government. 

I may say you were following the regular Communist line as laid 
down by Moscow. You say you are not a Communist. Maybe you 
are not. 

Mr. BissoN. May I comment that this campaign was after all headed 
by a Social Democrat personage, the daughter of the Socialist Prime 
Minister of Norway. 

Senator Eastland. That is the Communist strategy all over the 
world, to put some Social Democrat out in front. All the front or- 
ganizations in the country had some big name that did not know 
what was happening behind the scenes. But I cannot understand 
that when the chips were down that you always turned ujp on the Red 



4234 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Side of tilings. I cannot understand if you were not a Communist how 
you were used. 

Mr. BissoN. The point I am making here is people of all political 
persuasions were against this political imprisonment. They operated 
for all of them. 

Senator Eastland. Yes; but it is very strange that you just picked 
out of all of them that Communist leader to specifically help. 

Mr. Morris. Do we have any document that reports the fact that 
Mr. Bisson did in fact support Ernst Thaelmann, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. I have here a publication called International Press 
Correspondence which has previously been identified as the official 
organ of the Communist Internationale. It is volume 15, No. 50, dated 
October 5, 1935, and on page 1263 is an article entitled "The World- 
Wide Campaign for Thaelmann," which publicizes the activities of 
the international release committee which is working for the release 
of Thaelmann there appears as a member of the committee the name 
of Bisson and Field. 

I offer this page for the record. 

Mr. Bisson. Was that committee lieaded by Soiiya Branting? 

Mr. Mandel. All the names are given. 

Mr. Bisson. She was the daughter of the Socialist Prime Minister. 

Senator Eastland. That is the alibi to hide behind if it is charged 
it was a Communist set-up. It will be ])laced in the record. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 724" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 724 

The World-Wide Campaign for Thaelmann 

We have received the following statement from the International Release 
Committee : 

In all parts of the globe, even the most remote, the struggle for tlie release o£ 
Thaelmann is on the increase. New gronps of trade-unionists, intellectuals, new 
great organisations and factories take the fate of the menaced German fighters 
for peace into their protecting hands. 

The two great Congresses of French trade-unionists, that of the C. G. T. and 
of the C. G. T. U., adopted resolutions of protest against the imprisonment of 
Thaelmann, Mierendorff, Ossietzky, Brandes, and Maddalena. Jouhaux, the 
well-known French trade-union leader, declared at the opening of the C. G. T. 
congress that Caballero and Thaelmann are to be elected as honorary chairmen 
of this great congress. Many hundred union and branch secretaries of the two 
congresses, representing the French trade-union movement, which is now march- 
ing in a united front, signed a protest and demanded the release of Thaelmann, 
Mierendorff, Claus, Kayser, and of the thousands of imprisoned ti'ade-unionists 
captured in the illegal struggle for the trade-unions in Germany. 

In the United States of America the well-known Swedish lawyer, Sonia Brant- 
ing, daughter of the former Swedish Prime Minister, Hjalmar Branting, is tour- 
ing the country on behalf of the International Thaelmann Release Committee. 
Prominent American intellectuals have formed a Branting reception committee 
and are organising a campaign of meetings, lectures, and conferences all over 
the country. The committee includes ,Tudge Anna Cross : Bisson, Secretary of 
the Committee on Foreign Relations; Field, director of the Institute; the lawyers 
Hays, Ernst, and Lucile B. INIilner. The leader of the Socialist Party of the 
United States, Norman Thomas, a leading figure in American public life, has 
quite recently agreed to sit on the committee. The American press featured the 
first lectures of Sonia Branting in extensive articles. 

The "New York American" pointed out that Sonia Branting was well-acquainted 
with conditions in Germany as she had been a delegate to the recent penal reform 
congress lield in Berlin and had received a lasting impression of the level to 
which the administration of .iustice had sunk in Germany. The "New York 
Post" reported a lecture of Sonia Branting at length. She had especially stressed 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4235 

the barbarism of the methods of sterilisation, a procedure even applied as a 
punitive measure to political opponents. Sonia Branting drew a tn7e picture of 
the German machinery of justice which olieys the commands from above and 
which will judse Thaelmann at just such commands from above. The "New 
York Times," in reporting a lecture of Miss Branting, quotes the attitude of the 
speaker to the coming Olympic Games, which are to be held in Germany. The 
paper points out that nonparticipation in the Olympic Games is an act of protest 
against the persecution of opponents in the Third Reich and would be an act of 
sympathy on the part of the civilised world for the men and women humiliated 
and toriuented in Germany. The "New York Tribune" writes that Miss Branting 
received a telegram from leading French writers and journalists, asking her to 
form a release committee in the United States for the liberation of Thaelmann 
and all other imprisoned anti-fascists. 

On October 5 a great Thaelmann meeting will be held in Yorkville. Sonia 
Branting and a number of other prominent speakers will speak. On October 17 
a great iianquet will be held with the participation of men and women prominent 
in the intellectual life of New York. Sonia Branting will speak. The great mass 
meeting on October 25 will to a certain extent be a culminating point. It is to 
be held in New York for the release of Thaelmann and of all German anti-Nazi 
prisoners. The mass movement against the Nazi terror in the United States 
has already provoked the New York Nazis to outbursts of impotent rage and 
provocative tlireats. They have announced that they would organise counter- 
demonstrations. But the rising anti-Nazi feeling in the United States will nip 
in the bud the provocative plans of the Hitlerites, especially after the tremendous 
success of the Bremen affaii'. 

Even in the distant i.slands of New Zealand a wide mass movement is in 
progress on behalf of Thaelmann, Mierendorff, Ossietzky, etc. A great confer- 
ence of trade-unions, peace societies, and student clubs adopted a resolution 
demanding the release of Thaelmann, held in custody unlawfully for nearly 
three years, the release of all other anti-Nazi prisoners, and the cessation of 
the persecution by the Hitler regime of political and religious opponents. 

A delegation of' three handed the German consul, Herr Penseler, a copy of this 
resolution on behalf of the working population of New Zealand. The consul 
declared that his government had informed him that Thaelmann was being 
"decently treated." He promised to forward the resolution to the Hitler govern- 
ment. 

The New Zealand committee of the Movement Against War and Fascism has 
addres.sed a mass appeal to the workers, trade-unionists, and farmers of New 
Zealand. 

In Spain the popular movement for the release of Thaelmann has been con- 
siderably Intensified during recent weeks. A committee composed of intellec- 
tuals and representatives of various parties appointed September 14 as Spanish 
Thaelmann Day. A public meeting was held in one of the largest halls of Madrid 
which holds 5,000 persons. Over 15,000 people came to buy tickets. Representa- 
tives of the Radical Party, of the Repulil leans, of the Socialists, and a number 
of non-party intellectuals spoke. A unanimously adopted resolution demanded 
the release of Thaelmann and of the Imprisoned German anti-fascists. 

On the same day a mighty mass demonstration took place in Valencia, in which 
a number of representatives sent by other Spanish cities were present, and here 
as well as in Madrid the speakers included representatives of all progressive 
parties. 

In five cities of the Balearic Islands mass demonstrations were held on the 
same day demanding the release of Thaelmann. 

In almost every Spanish prison the political prisoners celebrated Thaelmann 
Day in their own particular way. About fifty letters came out of the prisons, 
fifty letters representing the result of discussions between thousands of captive 
workers. In these letters tlie prisoners, themselves victims of the terror, express 
their indignation at the barbarians now ruling Germany and demand the release 
of Thaelmann. 

A campaign has been undertaken in Spain to get five million signatures for a 
petition to release Thaelmann. In Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Seville, etc., 
one sees posters and stickybacks everywhere demanding the release of Thaelmann. 

The Spanish Legal Commission of Inquiry into the Thaelmann Trial, whose 
chairman is Victoria Kent, the well-known lawyer, recently adopted a resolution 
protesting again.st the further imprisonment of Thaelmann. The resolution was 
signed by the following jurists, all practising at the Madrid bar : Viktoria Kent, 
Luis Zubillaga, Enrique Porua, Francisco Lopez, de Goispechea, Benito Pavon, 



4236 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

E. Ortesa y Gasset. A delegation presented this petition of protest to the German 
consul in Madrid. A great number of Spanish newspapers printed the text of 
this petition and declared their sympathy with the demand for the release of 
Thaelniann. 

In the Scandinavian countries the campaign against the Hitler terror is making 
good progress. In Norway a release committee for the liberation of German 
anti-fascists is in the course of formation. Prominent scientists and writers, 
teachers' organisations, Socialist student clubs, and intellectuals have expressed 
their willingness to cooperate with the committee. In September the Oslo 
"Dagbladet" published a lengthy article on the scandalous sentence passed on 
Glaus and Kayser. Various individuals prominent in public life have addressed 
an open letter of protest to Hitler, demanding the rescinding of the death sentence 
passed on Glaus and Kayser. The whole action and the names of the leading 
personalities participating in it was described in a detailed communique issued by 
the official Norwegian news agency. 

A world-wide movement is now on foot to free the German fighters for liberty, 
who are now threatened by death ! The liberation of Dimitrov and the release 
under duress of Berthold Jakob have shown that only the mighty pressure of inter- 
national public opinion can save our courageous and tormented brothers. The 
trial of the 25 anti-fascists of Neu-Koelln, now in press in Berlin and revealing 
the barbarous methods employed by German justice, has warned the workers of 
the whole world that our menaced comrades are in deadly danger. Thus in this 
Berlin trial, which is ultimately intended to bring Thaelmann's head under the 
axe, a number of perjuries, the falsification of sworn statements and false testi- 
mony by bribed Nazi witnesses have already been proven beyond a doubt. 

Although the world is already in motion against the horrors of the Hitler 
regime, those harbingers of the horrors of the coming war — this movement is as 
yet only a start. Only if it is tremendously increased can Ernst Thaelmann and 
the other hostages of the Nazi war polic.v be wrested from the clutches of the 
fascist incendiaries and warmongers and restored to liberty. 

(English Edition, Internationl Press Correspondence, vol. 15, No. 50, 5th Octo- 
ber, 1935, p. 1263. ) 

Senator Eastland. Who approached yovi to become a member oi 
that committee ? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know anyone approached me. 

Senator Eastland. You jvist vohmtered? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have discussed it with Mr. Field. 

Senator Eastland. In fact now, to be frank, Mr. Field got you to 
become a member of that committee, did lie not ? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have <jotten Mr. Field to become a member of 
the committee. We were seeing each other in terms of our far-eastern 
work at that time. 

Senator Eastland. You and Freddie Field, of course. 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Field was then in the IPR. 

Senator Eastland. I understand he was. 

Mr. BissoN. I was in the Far Eastern Policy Association. We 
were both interested in far-eastern matters both officially and other- 
wise. 

Senator Eastland. I understand Mr. Field was in other things, too. 

How did you get your job with the Board of Economic Welfare? 

Mr. BissoN. To the best of my knowledge 

Senator Eastland. Wait a minute. Why say "To the best of my 
knowledge" ? You know very well who recommended you for a place 
on the Board of Economic Warfare. 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know. I don't remember specifically. 

Senator Eastland. What is the best of your knowledge? 

Mr. BissoN. I would probably have had support from the head of 
the Foreign Policy Association, Maj. Gen. Frank R. McCoy. 

Senator Eastland. But you don't know you did? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4237 

Mr. BissoN. He was my official superior in the organization that I 
was working with. 

Senator Eastland. Did yon know him ? 

Mr. BissoN. How could I help but know him. He was my superior. 
He was the president of the Foreign Policy Association. I was a 
member of the research staff there. I feel sure that I have a recom- 
mendation from him for that position. 

Senator Eastland. Did you have a recommendation from Mr. Field ? 

Mr. BissoN. I might have. 

Senator Eastland. What about Mr. Earl Browder? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Eastland. Do you know Mr. Browder ? 

Mr. BissoN. I have met him. 

Senator Eastland. Where did you meet Earl Browder ? 

Mr. BissoN. We spoke on the same lecture platform. 

Senator Eastland. Where ? 

Mr. BissoN. In New York. 

Senator Eastland. Whgit lecture platform was that? 

Mr. BissoN. I think it was a meeting that was concerned with the 
magazine China Today. 

Senator Eastland. What about Jack Stachel? Did you know 
him ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember knowing him. 

Senator Eastland. You don't remember knowing him? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Eastland. Have you been in Browder's office? 

Mr. BissoN. Have I ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. I have not. 

Senator Eastland. Where did you speak ; in Union Square ? 

]Mr. BissoN. I do not remember. I expect it was in some restaurant 
or dining place. 

Senator Eastland. In some restaurant ? 

Mr. BissoN. It was an evening, as I remember, an evening engage- 
ment. We probably had dinner first and then we had speeches. 

Senator Eastland. Yon and Browder had dinner and had speeches. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Is that the occasion that there has been testimony 
about here already ? 

Mr. BissoN. I am a little confused as to exactly which meeting 
that has reference to. 

Mr. SouEwiNE. How many meetings did you ever speak at with Mr. 
Browder ? 

Mr. BissoN. It is this China Today meeting. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Answer the question. 

Mr. BissoN. One. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Only one ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That is the one we have had testimony about? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You think that was in a restaurant? 

Mr. BissoN. That was my recollection. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you have a memory of speaking with Browder 
at some time with him in a restaurant ? 

88348— 52— pt. 12 14 



4238 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. No ; I do not have any specific memory. 

Senator Eastland. The tickets for that banquet were sold by New 
Masses and the Worker Book Shop, which was a Communist head- 
quarters, were they not ? 

Mr. BissoN. A Communist headquarters? 

Senator Eastland. Yes; 50 East Thirteenth Street. Is that not 
Communist headquarters? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not know. Not to my knowledge. 

Senator Eastland. You do know New Masses was a Communist 
Party publication ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do. 

Senator Eastland. I will tell you now that the tickets for this lec- 
ture that you made with Mr. Browder were sold at the Communist 
Party headquarters and New Masses. Was Mr, Hansu Chen present ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; I think he was. 

Senator Eastland. He was a Communist? 

Mr, BissoN. I have no reason to know he was. 

Senator Eastland. He was one of the speakers who appeared with 
you and Browder ; was he not ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. As a matter of fact, to be perfectly fair, Chen 
is a Communist? 

Mr, BissoN, I know him as such today. 

Senator Eastland. You know him as such today. Frederick Field 
was a speaker also ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. There was Bisson, Browder, Field, and Chen 
who were the speakers? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. They were all Communists but you ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not say that. 

Senator Eastland. You just said you knew Chen was a Communist. 
You know Earl Browder is a Communist? 

Mr. BissoN. It was not clear at that time what is clear today. 

Senator Eastland. Do you mean to say it was not clear to you that 
Earl Browder was a Communist ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; but I am speaking of the other two individuals, 
Mr. Field and Mr. Hansu Chen. 

Senator Eastland. It was not clear to you Freddie Field was a 
Communist ? 

Mr. BissoN. Not at that time ; no. 

Mr. ^loRRis. When you worked for tlie Board of Economic Welfare 
did you testify before tlie House Un-American Activities Committee? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. To what extent did you testify before the House 
committee ? 

Mr. Blsson. I am not sure what you mean "to what extent." 

Mr. Morris. How frequently did you testify? 

Mr. BissoN. I was called before them once. - 

Mr. Morris. Did you have a second appearance ? 

Mr. Bisson. I do not think so. 

Mr. IMorris. Was there a planned second appearance ? 

Mr. BissoN. Not that I know of. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4239 

Mr. Morris. Did you discuss with IPR confreres of yours the pos- 
sibility of having a second appearance before the Dies committee? 

Mr.BissoN. I may have. I clon't remember. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us what eft'orts you made in order to clear 
yourself before the Dies committee? Did you ask the IPR to help 
you ? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have. As I remember, there was a counsel of 
the BEW at that time and I can't remember his name, but it seems 
to me he gave us some help and came along to the session with me. 

Mr. Morris. The counsel to the Board of Economic Warfare went 
to the hearings? 

Mr. BissoN. This particular person. 

Mr. Morris. What is his name? 

Mr. BissoN. I cannot recall his name. 

Mr. Morris. To what extent did you ask the IPR to help you in 
your appearance before that committee and before the 

Mr. BissoN. To my knowledge very little. My chief efforts were 
getting help from the agency with which I was connected. 

Mr. Morris. You did, however, have the IPR to help you? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have. I do not recall. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identif v this letter, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a letter on the letterhead of "353 Willard 
Avenue, Chevy Chase, Md." It is a handwritten letter addressed to 
"Dear Mr. Carter" and signed "T. A. Bisson." Date, April 26, 1943. 

Mr. Morris. Was that letter taken from the files of the Institute 
of Pacific Relations ? 

Mr. JNIandel. It was. 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that letter, please ? 

Mr. Bisson (reading) : 

Dear Mr. Carter: I appreciate very mucli your generous assistance on the 
moving: expenses, whicli will ease things up for us on the transfer very materi- 
ally. If our dates work out, I should be ready to take up my new duties on 
June 2 or 3. 

Thanks very much for sending me the copy of Buell's characteristic letter. I 
find the BEW appropriation bill has just gone in, so I may still liave to run the 
gauntlet here early in May before the Kerr committee. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may that go into the record ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes, sir. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 725" and was read 
in full.) :.- 

Senator Eastland. What was the Kerr committee ? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, do you have any recollection of that 
committee? 

Mr. Mandel. The Kerr committee was a special committee of the 
House of Representatives, a subcommittee of the House Appropria- 
tions Committee which at that time dealt with loyalty cases. 

Senator Eastland. Did you write this letter ? 

Mr. Bisson. I did. 

Senator Eastland. What do you mean "so I may still have to run 
the gauntlet of the Kerr committee"? 

Mr. Bisson. It means I would have to appear before the Kerr 
committee. 

Senator Eastland. Does it not mean more than that? Does it not 
mean there was a probability in your mind your loyalty to your coun- 
try might be questioned ? 



4240 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. It was a security test ; yes. 

Senator Eastland. That was in April 1943, April 26, while this 
country was at war with Germany and Japan. Did you not mean 
here "So I may still have to run the gauntlet here early in May before 
the Kerr committee" that you thought your loyalty to your country 
might be questioned ? 

Mr. BissoN. It might be questioned; yes. It still remained to be 
proved. 

Senator Eastland. I understand that, but you thought conditions 
were such that your loyalty might be questioned. Why did you think 
your loyalty might be questioned? You were bound to have known 
the reasons that would cause them to question your loyalty to your 
country. 

Mr. BissoN. There was a group of 12 or 15 BEW individuals who 
were undergoing this scrutiny. Several of them appeared before 
the Dies committee. 

Senator Eastland. How did you know you would be called? 

Mr. BissoN. Some of them had been called and therefore I as- 
sumed I would be called, too. 

Senator Eastland. Why did you assume you would be called? 

Mr. BissoN. I was among the group that was being investigated 
and they were dealing with us in a more or less similar way. 

Senator Eastland. What had you done? 

Mr. BissoN. Nothing. 

Senator Eastland. What was the accusation against you? Why 
were they investigating your loyalty? 

Mr. BissON. I would not know. 

Senator Eastland. You are bound to know. On what basis were 
the others being questioned as to their loyalty? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not know the details. 

Senator Eastland. You do not know the details? You say that 
you knew they were investigating others, Mr. Bisson. Is that true? 

Mr. BissoN. That is true. 

Senator Eastland. How did you know they were investigating 
them? From talking to them? 

Mr. BissoN. The names were generally known. 

Senator Eastland. You had talked to them about their appear- 
ances, had you not? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; although I remember no specific individuals 
that I talked to. 

Senator Eastland. Of course if you talked to them about their ap- 
pearance before the committee, you certainly knew that the basis was 
that their loyalty was being questioned ? 

Mr. BissoN. When I talked with them we were primarily concerned 
as to what the situation would be before the committee. 

Senator Eastt.and. You know very well that if you asked a man 
about his appearance, you asked him on what grounds they were ques- 
tioning him. Didn't you do that? 

Mr. Fanelli. The answer is yes or no. You either did or did not. 

Mr. BissoN. I was not sure what ground I would be questioned on. 

Senator Eastland. You did not ask what grounds you would be 
questioned ? When you asked the other peojDle who had been called 
before that committee about their appearance, you certainly asked 
them the grounds on which their loj^alty was questioned, did you not? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4241 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Senator Eastland. You did not? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember so asking. 

Senator Eastland. How do you know it was a security check on 
them if you did not do that? 

Mr. BissoN. This w^as the general assumption. 

Senator Eastland. You asked them? You say you knew it was a 
security check. How did you know ? 

Mr. BissoN. The Kerr committee was organized, as I remember 
after the Dies committee. 

Senator Eastland. Is your answer you just assumed? 

Mr. Bisson. I had not finished my answer. Since tlie Kerr com- 
mittee was organized hiter, we assumed that perhaps the same group 
woukl go before that committee. 

Senator Eastland. On what ground? The ground of loyalty? 

]Mr. BissoN. It was a security test. 

Senator Eastland. That is a loyalty test ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. Why was it you thought you would be called 
before them and questioned about your loyalty ? 

Mr. BissoN. I would not know. I don't recall. 

Senator Eastland. Do you mean to tell me with your country at 
war and you an official of the American Government who was called 
before a committee of the American Congress to determine whether 
you were loyal to j^our country or not, in other words, whether you 
were a traitor or not, you would not know on what grounds your 
loyalty was questioned? Or you would not know^ on what grounds 
there was suspicion of treason against you? Do you mean to tell 
me that? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. That is exactly what I said. I went before the 
committee. I knew nothing of what I was being charged with. 

May I add a statement here? I have just been called a traitor 
before this committee. 

Senator Eastand. No, you have not. 

Mr. Fanelli. Let's get on. 

Senator Eastland. Let's straighten the record out. You have not 
b%en called a traitor. I said there was a question as to your loyalty by 
the Kerr committee ; that that meant there was a question as to whether 
you were guilty of treason or not, and with an accusation like that 
you were certainly bound to know the facts on which it was based. 
Whether it was true or not I do not know. I am making no charges 
against you. 

Mr. BissoN. May I be excused for a second? 

Senator Eastland. No; I want to proceed with the hearing. 

Mr. BissoN. I would like to go outside for a second. 

Senator Eastland. All right. 

(A short recess was taken.) 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify this letter, please, Mr. Mandel? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a handwritten document from 
the files of the IPK on the letterhead of the Board of Economic War- 
fare, Washington, D. C, dated April 14, with no year given, addressed 
to "Dear Mr. Carter," siimed T. A. Bisson, and the initials in the 
corner are ECC, WLH, KP, and HA. 



4242 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Will you read that letter, please ? 
Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

Exhibit No. 726 

Dear Mr. Carter : I cannot begin to tell you how heartening the letters from 
New York have been. There has been no second hearing yet, which is all to the 
good. In fact, the weight of the letters may be alone sufficient to prevent one, 
though I am not too sanguine on this point. The Kerr committee has to feel 
strong enough to reject the transcript of my testimony before the Dies committee, 
and the letters are therefore just what is needed. 

Unless complications develop, I am expecting to be at the Princeton conference 
this week end where I shall hope to have a chance to discuss things with you. 

Please express my thanks and pass on this word to any who may inquire. I 
appreciate your efforts more than I can say. 
Sincerely, 

T. A. BissoN. 

Mr. Morris. Did you write that letter ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Does that refresh your recollection whether the IPS, 
aided you in your difficulty in Washington at that time ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Can you testify further on that subject? 

Mr. BissoN. One of the things that we were doing was securing 
letters from persons that knew us in our previous careers that could 
testify to our loyalty to the United States and also to our general 
competency in the field that we were in. ]\f r. Carter, among others, was 
attempting to help me out in getting letters of that kind. I remember, 
for instance, that one letter came from Dr. Hu Shih who was, if not 
then a little later or a little earlier, the Chinese Ambassador to the 
United States. 

Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony you can now recall this where you 
could not recall it 5 minutes ago ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. You seem to have a clear memory now. 

Mr. BissoN. I had forgotten who helped out on these letters. I knew 
about the letters but I had not read that the IPR, through Mr. Carter, 
was helping me get those letters. There is nothing unusual 

Mr. Morris. There was no implication anything was unusual. We 
are asking if you had used the instrumentality of the IPR to aid ycyi 
in your difficulty in Washington. 

Mr. BissoN. The answer is "No." I had asked my personal friend, 
Mr. Carter, to help me, and he was helping to get those letters. 

Mr. Morris. May that letter go in ? 

Senator Eastland. It is submitted. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 726" and was read 
in full.) 

Mr. Mandel. I have here a handwritten letter from the files of the 
IPR on the letterhead addressed "353 Willard Avenue, Chevy Chase, 
Md.", dated April 30, 1943, addressed to "Dear Mr. Carter" and signed 
T. A. Bisson. 

Senator Eastland. Right here, to save time, all these letters and 
documents will be admitted into the record unless challenged by the 
witness and his attorney. Then I will pass on them. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4243 

Mr. Mandel. Attached thereto is a carbon copy from the files of the 
IPR dated April 30, 1943, addressed to "Dr. Joseph P. Chamberlain." 
It is unsigned. 

Mr, Morris. Will yon read that letter, please? 

Mr. BissoN. You mean the ink letter? 

Mr. Morris. Yes ; the one in your handwriting. 

Mr. BissoN (reading) : 

Exhibit No. 727 

I enclose copy of a letter to Dr. Chamberlain for your information. My hunch 
is that the case here will develop into a large and politically significant fight. 
At the moment, however, it looks as though Watson and Dodd will provide the 
test cases over which the battle in Congress will be waged, leaving the rest until 
after that decision is reached. 
Sincerely, 

T. A. BissoN. 

May I comment on that ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I see that letter while you are phrasing your 
comment ? 

Mr. Morris. I would like to know, too, if that second letter is a letter 
written by you ? 

Mr. BissoN. I will see. 

The comment I wanted to make on this original one was that Watson 
and Dodd had had their salaries stopped apparently that the decision 
hinged on that because it was a question whether the salaries would be 
stopped before a decision had been reached, in other words, before the 
court test or the loyalty hearing, or whatever it was, that was con- 
cluded and a decision was reached as to whether the person was 
cleared or not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Is that other letter a copy of a letter you wrote? 
What is the date of that? 

Mr. BissoN. That is April 30, 1943. 

Mr. SouRW^iNE. . To whom is it addressed? 

Mr. BissoN. Dr. Joseph P. Chamberlain. 

Mr. SouRA^aNE. Is that a letter you wrote ? 

Mr. BissoN. May I look at it? It is a long letter. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Surely. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; that is a letter I wrote to Dr. Chamberlain. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May they go in the record ? 

Senator Eastland. I ordered them all in the recard unless they 
are challenged. 

(The letters referred to were marked "No. 727" (read in full), and 
"No. 728" and is as follows:) 

April 30, 1943. 
Dr. .Joseph P. Chamberlain, 

510 Kent Hall, ColuniMa University, New York, N. Y. 

Dear Dr. Chamberlain : Some of the recent developments in the handling of 
the congressional investigations here may be of interest to you. Three persons 
have appeared so far before the Kerr committee. As you know, Schuman was 
exonerated while Dodd and Watson were convicted. It seems possible that hear- 
ings of tlie others involved will be delayed until Dodd and Watson are ousted 
from office by congressional vote. 

The ouster will apparently be attempted through attachment of riders to 
appropriation hills indicating that no funds from any source shall be utilized to 
i:ay the salary of the accused. Passage seems likely in the House, but a stiffer 



4244 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

fight is in prospect in the Senate, doubtless with considerable attendant publicity. 
The issues in debate will probably extend beyond the narrower problem involved 
into such broader questions as to whether Dies, Fish, and the other isolationists 
or the accused were correct in estimating the course of international develop- 
ments in the past decade and as to whether political libei'alism can survive in 
this country in the near future if this preliminary attack succeeds. 

The normal arbitrary procedures of a congressional committee have, of course, 
been applied in this case. The Dies committee permitted a legal representative 
of each agency involved to attend the hearing as an observer, but not to partici- 
pate in the hearing or act as legal counsel for the accused. The Kerr committee 
has refused to permit a representative of the agency involved to attend the 
hearings even as an observer. No list of charges is furnished to the accused in 
advance of the hearing. 

In one case certain members of the Kerr committee sought to pin the accused 
down to "Yes" or "No" answers, thus seeking to prevent the introduction of evi- 
dence into the hearing. This created a dispute within the committee which was 
finally resolved in favor of the accused. On the next day the same members of 
the committee again sought "Yes" or "No" answers and refused to be bound by 
the previous committee decision. When the accused picked up his papers and 
prepared to leave, however, the atmo.^iphere cleared and the accused was again 
allowed to proceed with the introduction of evidence. 

The Kerr committee's report on the Watson-Schuman-Dodd case (Congres- 
sional Record, April 21 ) has applied an extraordinary definition of "subversive" 
to certain organizations, defining them as such by reason of the judgment of the 
"court of public opinion" in the United States. Association with organizations 
so defined then involves the individuals concerned in "subversive activity.". 

The Kerr committee is on firmer legal ground apparently when it connects an 
individual with organizations listed as subversive in a statement by the Attorney 
General (cited by Dies on the floor of Congress last January). There is some 
question, however, as to whether this list was merely an interoffice memorandum 
within the Justice Department to which the Attorney General's name became 
attached by some unexplained means. This point would bear clearing up because 
it affords by far the strongest ground that has ever been afforded Dies in his 
campaign. 

All of this information may be already known to you, but I have set it down 
here on the chance that some of the details may be new to you and of interest. 
I presume you have seen the 26-page statement issued by the Federal Commu- 
nications Commission in defense of its employees. 
Sincerely yours, 



Mr. Morris. Do you have a question, Mr. Sourwine ? 

Mr. Sourwine. No. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify these letters, please, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandeu. I have here a handwritten letter from the files of the 
IPR on the letterhead "353 Willard Avenue, Chevy Chase, Md." dated 
April 21, 1943, addressed to "Dear Mr. Carter," and signed "T. A. 
Bisson." An attachment thereto is a carbon copy of a letter from the 
files of the IPR addressed to "Hon. John H. Kerr, chairman. Special 
Subcommittee of Committee on Appropriations, House of Representa- 
tives," with the typed signature of Edward C. Carter. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, this is already introduced in the record 
as Exhibit 260. 

Mr. Bisson, will you read your letter, please? 

Mr. Bisson (reading) : 

Dear Mr. Carter : My formal letter of resignation here went in yesterday, 
effective for June 1. Stone just called me and the decision was made final. 

The replies by Kerr make it seem that the matter may not be carried any 
further for the moment. Formal clearance, however, seems unlikely. 
May I again express my deep appreciation for your help? 
Sincerely, 

T. A. Bisson. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4245 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, -will you identify these letters, please? 

Mr, Mandel. I have here several carbon copies of letters from the 
files of the IPR. The first one is dated April 12, 1943, addressed to 
"Dear Dr. Evans, The Rockefeller Foundation", with the typed signa- 
ture of Edward C. Carter. The second one is a carbon copy of a 
letter dated April 12, 1943, addressed to Miss Pearl Buck, with the 
typed signature of Edward C. Carter. 

The third is a carbon copy of a letter dated April 12, 1943, addressed 
to Dr. Goodrich with the typed signature of Edward C. Carter. 

The next is a carbon copy dated April 12, 1943, addressed to Dr. 
Raymond Leslie Buell, with the typed signature of Edward C. Carter. 

And finally, a carbon copy of a letter dated April 12, 1943, addressed 
to Mr. Richard J. Walsh, with the typed signature of Edward C. 
Carter. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, these all seem to be worded in the same 
fashion. The first paragraph begins : 

The Dies Committee is after T. A. Bisson who for the past year has been 
working for the BEW. Bisson desires a few of his friends to write letters 
testifying to his loyalty as an American citizen, adding anything that the 
writer feels free to say. 

That seems to be the form that Mr. Carter followed in all of these 
letters, Mr. Chairman. The letters will speak for themselves. May 
they go into the record ? 

Senator Eastland. They are ordered in unless there is objection. 

(The letters referred to were marked "Exliibit No. 729'' and ai-e as 
follows:) 

Exhibit 729 

129 East 52nd Street, 
tfew York City, April 12, 1943. 
Dr. RoGEB F. Evans, 

The Rockefeller Fotmdation, 

49 East 49th Street, New York City. 
Dear Dr. Evans : Here is a copy of my letter to Honorable John H. Kerr, 
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Committee on Appropriations, House of 
Representatives, Washington, D. C, regarding Mr. T. A. Bisson. 
Sincerely yours, 

Edward C. Carter. 

Copies of the following letter were sent to : Miss Pearl Buck, R. D. 3, Perkasie, 
Pennsylvania ; Dr. L. Carrington Goodrich, Columbia University, New York City ; 
Dr. Raymond Leslie Buell, Fortune Magazine. Time and Life Building, Rocke- 
feller Plaza, New York; Mr. Richard J. Walsh, Asia Magazine, 40 East 49th 
Street, New York City. 

129 East 52nd Street, 
Neic York City, April 12, 1943. 

Dear  — : The Dies Committee is after T. A. Bisson who for the 

past year has been working for the BEW. Bisson desires a few of his friends 
to write letters testifying to his loyalty as an American citizen adding anytiiing 
that the writer feels free to say. 

Enclosed is a copy of what I have written. Would you feel free to write directly 
to Honorable John H. Kerr, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Committee on 
Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, sending a copy 
of your letter to T. A. Bisson at 353 Willard Avenue, Chevy Chase, Maryland. 
Sincerely yours, 

Edward C. Carter. 



4246 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. This was not written by Mr. Bisson bnt it bears on 
the point of to what extent the IPR was an instrnmentality in ob- 
taining signatures or sending testimonial letters for Mr. Bisson. 

Mr. Bisson. "To Avhat extent Mr. Carter was." He was not neces- 
sarily acting as an IPK, official but as an individual. 

Mr. Morris. These were from the files of the IPR, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Eastland. Proceed. 

Mr. Bisson. Are you turning to a new subject? 

Mr. Morris. Do you have some comment ? 

Mr. Bisson. Yes. I think it is pertinent to this last half or three 
quarters of an hour's testimony to note that I was under investigation 
at this same time by the Civil Service Commission. As some of you 
may probably remember from that period, people were hired in a 
great hurry and went into the departments in large numbers and then 
the Civil Service Commission proceeded to conduct its routine 
investigation. 

In the spring of 1943 the Civil Service Commission's formal clear- 
ance for me w^as suitable and fit for Government employment and 
that came through. They had conducted this investigation during the 
whole period when the Dies committee and the Kerr committee were 
operating. The decision of the Civil Service Commission was that 
I was suitable and fit for Government employment as indicated by 
that formal clearance. 

I do not have a copy of that with me, but I presume this fact I am 
now stating can be verified. 

Mr. Soxjrwine. Mr. Chairman, at that point may I interrogate 
very briefly ? 

I have before me what purports to be a copy of the Form 3721 
personal history statement which this witness executed in connection 
with his Board of Economic Warfare employment. I do not ask this 
go in the record because this is not the best evidence. The committee 
is securing and will have in its possession later today a photostatic 
copy of the original form. I ask that the photostatic copy go in. 

Senator Eastland. Yes, proceed. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 730" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 730 

United States Civil Service Commission, 

Washitigton, D. C, March 31, 1952. 
Honorable Pat McCarran, 

Chairman, Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, 
Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. 

Dear Senator IVIcCarran : As requestetl in telephone conversation between 
my secretary and Miss Walker of your staff, I am enclosing a photostat copy 
of Form 3721, filled out by Mr. Thomas Arthur Bisson, born November 8, liWO. 
This is the only personal history statement for this person we were able to 
locate in our flies. 

Sincerely yours, 

Robert Ramspeck, Chairmajx. 
Inelosure 142384. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



4247 






A^mi 



UIIITED STATES CIVIL S£W«€Ca^l$$ir 

:*....«,.,.. r%.:: APR 19 1942^ 



This f«ra isuist !>« ex«c;ate{) : in «>« aj5pj icatvt ■« iwn ,hat!*»,' it tns, ;« sfsk,. 

)' acait ■<!!»! SjWce is ne«!»! t«r «ny itsre ir tr>i«. Far«, enlris:^ 

 sriou5(! »e" cont-inaaii «« a SBparats shejst. each «Atry rxssfesre!} ts coffe- 









' TS«3» »i* 



^ 



If » ««!rj'S»« «I>««1>, JlUVJ-ttJl »tt*»X!K*ffXM!;W!im 



iirirtti <SJ«8X«> fi«SJ 






i «. »»*♦ »f %irt*: 



»i jr »»Mt»»-»o««. «t»» in »»tw»i«» x»»»M*,tJo«; 



fUMHik; <a«.i : ;!»•>;>;' 



. <4> 3Pt»C» ♦f ««l»r»Jt »**•«>»: 



»> iPii»is of i<lt»>! 



<«> 0*t».4r. «»t«y*Sl«*tldft 



f'. *f?i-»»X{ ■■;■■:■ ::'-;-v;:W^^^ 



(<;»»») , ,,;--t«»»*.> ' __. ■„ ;■ • 



(t) )l»t»j»-i»i»t«9» <:«JrttTie»«» »»■' }<*> »»»♦ sa<t«f .■•M«« 







(*J ^*«« *r>4 (-»! «.* i<j««:ltiy t , 



, J>? E^ Jjwabftflfl, *i»5.« *ftft s^3»Ha« «f s-«r?i-4«* 



(«> e.t» »f «ri»»l l» B, ».5 ._- ! (45 »i.pt «f «»«ryj 



f-»> »■».*» »ir ■**«*•! «? <<t*«F .;»**»;#;.;;#iF-:;w«*iM« 



(»! »J«» jf »jit«»«l«*tt«i 



t ^«> »*«* »*' R«%«r«3;l»*tJ« 



<fej C#»r» a*' *»t!»r*i(»«4tt> 



{») !>«(HM^.»Ji»»tl«» «»»*tf(r«*« »u«a«n |qX 



?.{«) «»> ,0* »»«)>« 



f-^J^^li^y^MA^ 






[• Of »«th»»i ftttiHta^ife-g ««-ia*» «»:»«> 



tXoMit} 



i6.> »sl«r««»4 



:' - ^''Av.iQ sv-5-;-44.4 






. f£,tl4tt4^>i «* 



 » K>«E*iMO» -- »tY«! t!f StiStit* »»»»_* »M«t»!) »T*T««l«t «!P •»)!» jRlSSiTMlt, r«*i1!»t»a OiTSSi 

sfeei..-.,..-- ., 



4«a f»«» -^3WC«S«<;s!4r. , iW^ V t* 



^.Mjt^„. 






»?>: *««Ifcal«*t^:»«»**3: T»»» «)B J***- 



;i^^ Ci'^tWAC 1 ^Um}^ I »»«»•«* J»V »»«*1« 



*»»« : r*9 ■,**M»ii*«*SS^ 



[ *t*< «^ t»>iT»* j^<»p-««»a, »»« rf«j^^ 






&A...-, 



4248 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 







^i:mM\ 






■^ I fX^oe 






".b>e*3^:..-j 









5*>;* ♦«(* ^*.5« vr-Bjyrti -sif 



nR^HnBaMiy* V s\.f.W!t^F^WrV^rt^T-\ 



::^:in ' P^^ 






•d.'tJ'V* <■>•>! 'k'VIhJ d#t*n*: j i*>i Pi« 






>;?tJit:»i («<j&th; (Tt**?- 



*»■*■ 7^y jr.^xiH4irf -iC ti*f«ttdtAS1, ? 



BmMmgiWmMffiMJMlmiM g 









':• '*^'^<^/ 









INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



4249 






» ».j 4i*i**i^*^^i 



i iiimnii i Biui gngw 



ij*«*iP«pt «* U*6* «*«Jj|«*«*t for 



<>> if «*> (((*-«. d:itt.v«^ ««««.»fi^ i«-if«it** «r c***-r>i^;: 






■■■"*.■ -_»*-*«*« ti* «^t****?- .■-:■-■■■■--■.■.--■-■:■. 



If ♦a, SU* »*«3» fcff?**!, #i»t*« 4»«.». ««♦'«* ifc* „ .. ^ ji<f^. „ _ ^ -"'• 

- ti**, ^ti5», «-9>st*t.> s»».*'8;«, ««4 4jt«po«l*l;«n; ifT«« S-f »o!! ''T ' " '■''. ■■■■' ■' ■"■  '' " ""''' '" "" 






nXttA, i>M4. y«iJ**'«J Cfc^U Sffr'TSo 



"X^HfUJ^ 






UM0mm/ 



^2&imS ^ ' <£^<i'i^ ^M'U^m': 






-^U\; 4::xd44f^:V''^ 



'^^^ WH,^ ^*^^ 



tti« air^tJthJ^*.* of .««*- V<in*t Jtut i**!*;! >. a'r« i>f <£>*»?TS#*nt ift -t>>* tint t»* St*i«s, or *i* yov h*«« »»«it»ts*t (p t-c.-sr-. 



4250 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



.»«.. l,1-«S yoa* r»»t<i»»e*«. rfw.rl«jt t3i« i>»»t Tlr* jr««r«t tttclu^lng^ your ^fvs^ns.. i«««l t.J*^f*»»' Otr» «V»» tft« n*««« o<, »n6 
oStS)" "(f.XrT ■" "" '<«loBtS>~ ftiis-r ~ - - '(fail,!,;- ' Trt»« 



»),{»««!■> . itiMi) ;t» 



^Ko.fc*!-') (*t«»«l> 



)tJIO«SWM!l-. 



- - - - - *• - - -^^iitS,-,)- 



»•- ^■'S^'-P.'^^h-S^x'€^''i''-yJ'^i''^ yi-\?^ ■5^'M'¥-f^l'J'. u. 






:»./.>:^-. .^FW 



rWiswaseti. •/ 



Mt. 8: 



;-?tC/ *'.«^S***<; 












t«oB,i:,h> <1f«fi?J (itentfcj iy»**v (*«»fe«r) (»tr«»t? 



ir^**Tt , (i(«-»6h) <?-«nfcf> [»a»ip 



1 cijrt t *">• t tsst ti>"« f ! 



iffiowje^g* and fc>:i^ie?x 



<aij**ttt»* «t *^»i J CUBITS 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4251 





TcuJlcc ^ 

doJU&^.^ tU (^ff^j /LMiM^^ Pa^^jMXiy omJ- 



4252 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you recall filing a personal history statement 
while you were with BEW? 

Mr. BissoN. Yqs. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You were asked for that ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That was some time after you had actually begun 
work? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; I think so. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. When you actually went to work did you file a Form 
57, or an application form of any sort ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember. Presumably there was some form. 
I do not recall at this time. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You do not recall how you made application for 
work with the Board ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Who was head of the Board of Economic Warfare 
when you went to work ? 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Perkins, I think. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did he remain the head of that Board throughout 
your entire tenure? 

Mr. BissoN. No. I think he was replaced by the Vice President. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What Vice President? 

Mr. BissoN. Mr. Wallace. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. When was that ? 

Mr. BissoN. I am not sure just when that occurred, presumably in 
1942. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was Mr. Wallace still the head of the Board when 
you left? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; I think so. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. When you filed this personal history statement — it 
is dated April 1, 1942 — does that strike any discord with your memory ? 
Are you willing to accept that as the date it was filed ? 

Mr. BissoN. I think that would be right. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The purpose of that statement was to inform the 
Government as a basis for a civil-service check-up of where you had 
worked and what you had done ; is that correct ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr, SouRwiNE. You had this statement typed up, did you not? 

Mr. BissoN. I think so. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. In the portions of the statement which you had 
typed out did you give any information about your connection with 
IPR? 

Mr. BissoN. I had no connection with the IPE, before that time. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You had not ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Then the answer would be "No" ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you give any information about your connec- 
tion with the Ajnerican Committee for Nonparticipation in Japanese 
Aggression? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you give any information about your connec- 
tion with American Friends of the Chinese People ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4253 

Mr, SouRWiNE. Did you give any information about your connec- 
tion you may have had with the American League for Peace and 
Democracy ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you give any information about your connec- 
tion with the International Release Committee that we have spoken 
about here ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiXE. Did you give any information about your connec- 
tion with Amerasia? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. This is the information that you were furnishing 
as the basis for the check-up that the Civil Service Commission was 
going to make on you ? 

Mr. BissoN. No ; this, as I remember, was a check sheet asked by our 
employer in our section. It was not a sheet that was to be filed with 
the Civil Service Commission. He wanted to know the jobs we had 
held and what our background was in general. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You felt you were answering that question and 
giving him the desired information even though you did not give any 
of these items of information I have referred to ? 

Mr. BissoN. Certainly. It did not necessarily mean one was to 
give every possible organization that one had been connected with. 
He was primarily interested in the career background. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. After you had filed this, weren't you subsequently 
told that you should have made mention of some of these organiza- 
tions you belonged to? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have been ; yes. 

Senator Eastland. Were you? You remember if you had been 
told that. 

Mr. BissoN. I think I was. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Didn't you get the application form back, the Form 
3721 back, and make additions to it in your own handwriting? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Didn't you make the additions under the heading 
"Membership organizations,'' with tlie first the American Council of 
thelPR? 

Mr. Bissoisr. I may have. 

Mr. SouinvixE. You just said you had no connection with the 
IPR. 

Mr. BissoN. I had no business connection with them. That merely 
a membership. I assumed you were referring to a business connection. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. Didn't you add, in your own handwriting, the 
American Committee for Nonparticipation in Japanese Aggression? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have; yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Didn't you add American Friends of the Chinese 
People? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Didn't you add "Was probably on the mailing list 
for American League for Peace and Democracy ; never a dues-paying 
member" ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. Incidentally, may I make a comment on that 
point ? 

88348— 52— pt. 12 15 



4254 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Let me continue, please. 

Your purpose for adding these was because you had been told there 
should be some mention of the organizations you belonged to on this 
sheet ; is that right ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You added them? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Why didn't you add your membership in the Inter- 
national Release Committee ? 

Mr. BissoN. In terms of my background, that was so unimportant 
that it never even occurred to me. My only relation with that com- 
mittee, so far as I know, was this one occasion on which this greeting 
was made. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Why didn't you add your connection with Amer- 
asia? Was that completely unimportant in regard to your back- 
ground ? 

Mr. BissON. Amerasia was a magazine. It was not really an 
organization. I may have thought that a magazine was not called 
for here. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You don't know why you didn't add it in ? 

Mr. BissoN. I would say that would be the reason. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was it the reason ? You said it must have been. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. That was the reason. That is the only magazine 
among that list so far as I know. 

Mr, SoiTRWiNE. I have no more questions. 

Mr. BissoN. I would like to make one point here ; that is, this takes 
on the appearance here of a very formal business. My recollection 
was that this was handled very informally. There was just a memo- 
randum coming around saying "Get up some kind of sheet showing 
what your background was." I got that sheet up. That was the 
original one. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. It is a printed form; isn't it? The original one is 
a printed form ? 

Mr. Bissoisr. No. The original one was not. It was merely a type- 
written manuscript that I typed out myself. Later on the head of 
our section said, "We want more information than has been given on 
these. Let's make them more complete and adequate." This was not 
a formal filing of applications for anything. It was merely an inter- 
office procedure. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You were already employed by BEW ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You had been employed there January 22, 1942? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You worked there until July 10, 1943? 

Mr. BissoN. That was my formal severance date. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. This form 3721 is dated April 1, 1942. That is 
more than 3 months after you began working there? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes, but what I am saying is that the first operation 
on that was just a memorandum saying "Set clown some of your back- 
ground for us for the use of the person that is in charge of this de- 
partment." 

Then later on it may have become formalized. I had forgotten 
there was a formal form. The thing was made more complete. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You mean your hiring by BEW was a very informal 
thing? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4255 

Mr. BissoN. This was not hiring. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I am asking about the time you were hired. It was 
a very informal thing. You made no formal application. You were 
not required to give a statement of your employment? 

Mr. BissoN. On the contrary. I think I did give a formal state- 
ment of employment. This was an infonnal thing within the depart- 
ment afterward. 

Senator Eastland. Proceed, Mr. Morris. 

Mr. MoKRis. Do you know whether or not Dr. H. H. Fisher con- 
sulted personnel of the IPE, in connection with his desire to increase 
the teaching and library facilities in the Far East in connection with 
liis Hoover War Library? 

Mr. BissoN. In connection with what? 

Mr. Morris. His Hoover War Library. 

Mr. BissoN. Did he consult with IPR ? 

Mr. Morris. With IPR personnel including yourself? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us what you know about it? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not know the details on it. 

Mr. Morris. Did he consult with you on it? 

Mr. BissoN. What is the date of this? 

Mr. Morris. In 1945. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. I do not remember the ch^tails. 

Mv. Morris. Will you identify that letter, Mr. Mandel? 

Mr. JNIandel. I have here a memorandum from the files of the IPR 
dated January 24, 1945, headed ''RD from ECC." 

Senator Easti^and. Who is RD ? 

Mr. Morris. Who is RD? 

Senator Eastland. Was it Raymond Dennett? 

Mr. BiRsoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. How do you spell it? 

Mr. BissoN. D-e-n-n-e-t-t, I think. 

Mr. Morris (reading) : 

Exhibit No 731 
RD From ECC 

Yesterday Dr. H. H. Fisher of the Hoover War Library came in in connection 
with Stanford's desire to increase its teacliing and library facilities on the Far 
East. 

In addition to meeting Grajdanzev and Bisson, I arranged for him to have a 
talk with Salisbnry. who will doubtless i-eport to you the substance of his 
conversations. 

Does that refresh j'our recollection on the fact that you had a con- 
versation with Dr. H. H. Fisher in connection with the question that 
was put to you ? 

Mr. Fanelli. He said he did, as I recall. 

Mr. BissoN. My original statement was that I probably did talk 
with him; that I didn't remember the details. 

Mr. Morris. Doesn't this indicate you did as a matter of fact talk 
with him ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Can you recall the conversation ? 

Mr. BissoN. I cannot. I said at the time I did not recall the de- 
tails. I do not recall the details. 



4256 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. May this go into the record to establish the fact there 
was a conversation? 

Senator Eastland. It will be admitted. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 731" and was read 
in full.) 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever write for the publication, Soviet Russia 
Today? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. On how many occasions did you write for Soviet Russia 
Today? 

Mr. BissoN. At least once. 

Mr. ]\loRRis. With whom did you negotiate in your writings for 
Soviet Russia Today? 

Mr. BissoN. Presumably it would be with the editor. 

]\Ir. JSIoRRis. Did you negotiate with Jessica Smith? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; I probably did. 

Senator Eastland. Did you negotiate with her? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Who is Jessica Smith? 

Mr. BissoN. It has been indicated she is the editor of 

Senator Eastland. Was she? Testify, please. 

Mr. INIoRRis. Was she ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know her personally ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not actually remember seeing her, 

Mr. Morris. How did you carry on negotiations? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't know. Presumably by letter. 

Mr. Morris. Is that your only recollection on the subject? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

]Mr. Morris. Do you remember signing a letter entitled "To All 
Active Supporters of Democracy and Peace,"' which is an open letter 
calling for greater unity of anti-Fascist forces and strengthening the 
forces against aggression, released on August 14 by 400 leading 
Americans, which appeared in Soviet Russia Today in September 
1939? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may it be admitted into the record? 
I just call attention to this first point which seems to be called for in 
this open letter? 

Senator Eastland. Yes; it may be admitted. When was it 
published? 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 732" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 782 

[Source: Sdviot Russia Today, 193!>, September] 

To All Active Si pporters of Democracy and Peace 

The text of an Open Letter calling for greater unity of the anti 
fascist forces and strengthening of the front against aggression 
throu,ch closer cooperation with the Soviet Union, releasefl 
on August 14 by 400 leading Americans. 

One of the greatest problems confronting all those engaged in the struggle 
for democracy and peace, whether they be liberals, progressives, trade-unionists, 
or others, is how to unite their various forces so as to achieve victory for their 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4257 

common goals. The Fascists and their allies are well aware that democracy 
will win if its supporters are united. Accordingly, they are intent on destroy- 
ing such unity at all costs. 

On the international scene the Fascists and their friends have tried to pre- 
vent a united antiaggression front by sowing suspicion between the Soviet 
Union and other nations interested in maintaining peace. 

On the domestic scene the reactionaries are attempting to split the demo- 
cratic front by similar tactics. Realizing that here in America they cannot 
get far with a "definitely profascist appeal, they strive to pervert American anti- 
fascist sentiment to their own ends. With the aim of turning antifascist feeling 
against the Soviet Union they have encouraged the fantastic falsehood that 
the U. S. S. R. and the totalitarian states are basically alike. By this strategy 
they hope to create dissension among the progressive forces whose united 
strength is a first necessity for the defeat of fascism. 

Some sincere American liberals have fallen into this trap and unwittingly 
aided a cause to which they are essentially opposed. Thus, a number of them 
have carelessly lent their signatures to the recent manifesto issued by the 
so-called Committee for Cultural Freedom. This manifesto denounces in vague, 
undefined terms all forms of "Dictatorship" and asserts that the Fascist states 
and Soviet Russia equally menace American institutions and the democratic 
way of life. 

While we prefer to dwell on facts rather than personalities, we feel it is 
necessary to point out that among the signers of this manifesto are individuals 
who have for years had as their chief political objective the maligning of the 
Soviet people and their government, and it is precisely these people who are the 
initiators and controllers of the committee. 

A number of other committees have been formed which give lip service to 
democracy and peace while actually atacking the Soviet Union and aiding reac- 
tion. Honest persons approached by such committees should scrutinize their 
aims very carefully and support only those groups genuinely interested in 
preserving culture and freedom and refusing to serve as instruments for attack- 
ing the Soviet Union or aiding Fascism in any other way. 

The undersigned do not represent any committee or organization, nor do they 
propose to form one. Our object is to point out the real purpose behind all these 
attempts to bracket the Soviet Union with the Fascist states, and to make it 
clear that Soviet and Fascist policies are diametrically opposed. To this end we 
should like to stress ten basic points in which Soviet socialism differs funda- 
mentally from totalitarian fasci-sm. 

1. The Soviet Union continues, as always, to be a consistent bulwark against 
war and aggression, and works unceasingly for the goal of a peaceful interna- 
tional order. 

2. It has eliminated racial and national iir(\iudice within its borders, freed the 
minority peoples enslaved under the Tsars, stimulated the development of the 
culture and economic welfare of these peoples, and made the expression of anti- 
Semitism or any racial animosity a criminal offense. 

3. It has socialized the means of production and distribution through the 
public owner.shlp of industry and the collectivization of agriculture. 

4. It has established nationwide socialist planning, resulting in increasingly 
higher living standards, and the abolition of unemployment and depression. 

5. It has built the trade-unions, in which almost 24,0(X),000 workers are organ- 
ized, into the very fabric of its society. 

6. The Soviet Union has emancipated woman and the family, and lias devel- 
oped an advanced system of child care. 

7. Fi-om the viewpoint of cultural freedom, the difference between the Soviet 
Union and the Fascist countries is most striking. The Soviet Union has effected 
one of the most far-reaching cultural and educational advances In all liistory 
and among a population which at the start was almost three-fourths illiterate. 
Those writers and thinkers whose books have been burned by the Nazis are pub- 
lished in the Soviet Union. The best literature from Homer to Thomas Mann, 
the best thought from Aristotle to Lenin, is available to the masses of the Soviet 
people, who themselves actively participate in the creation of culture. 

8. It has replaced the myths and superstitions of old Russia with the truths 
and techniques of experimental science, extending scientific procedures to every 
field, from economics to public health. And it has made science and scientific 
study available to the mass of the people. 

9. The Soviet Union considers political dictatorship a transitional form and has 
shown a steadily expanding democracy in every sphere. Its epoch-making new 



4258 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Constitution guarantees Soviet citizens universal suffrage, civil liberties, the 
right to employment, to leisure, to free education, to free medical care, to mate- 
rial security in sickness and old age, to equality of the sexes in all fields of 
activity, and to equality of all races and nationalities. 

10. In relation to Russia's past, the country has been advancing rapidly along 
the road of material and cultural progress in ways that the American people can 
understand and appreciate. 

The Soviet Union has an economic system different from our own. But Soviet 
aims and achievements make it clear that there exists a sound and permanent 
basis in mutual ideals for cooperation between the U. S. A. and the U. S. S. R. on 
behalf of world peace and the security and freedom of all nations. 

Accordingly, the signers of this letter urge Americans of whatever political 
persuasion to stand firmly for close cooperation in this sphere between the 
United States and Soviet Russia, and to be on guard against any and all attempts 
to prevent such cooperation in this critical period in the affairs of mankind. 

Among the 400 signers of the open letter are : 
Dr. Thomas Addis, professor of medicine, Leland Stanford University 
Helen Alfred, executive director. National Public Housing Conference 
Prof. Newton Arvin, professor of English, Smith College 
Dr. Charles S. Bacon, honorary president, American Russian Institute, Chicago, 

111. 
Frank C. Bancroft, editor, Social Work Today 
Maurice Becker, artist 

Louis P. Birk, editor, Modern Age Books, Inc. 
T. A. Bisson, research associate, Foreign Policy Association 
Alice Stone Blackwell, suffragist, writer 
Marc Blitzstein, composer 
Anita Block, Theater Guild playreader 
Sterling Bowen, poet 

Richard Boyer, staff writer, The New Yorker 
Millen Brand, writer 
Simon Breines, architect 
Rol)ert Briffault, writer 

Prof. Dorothy Brewster, assistant professor of English, Columbia University 
Prof. Edwin Berry Burgum, associate professor of English, New York University 
Fielding Burke, writer 
Katherine Devereaux Blake, teacher 

Meta Berger, writer, widow of the first Socialist Congressman 
Prof. Robert A. Brady, professor of economics. University of California 
J. E. Bromberg, actor 
Bessie Beatty, writer 
Vera Caspary, scenario writer 
Maria Cristina Chambers, of the Authors' League 

Prof. Robert Chambers, research professor of biology. New York University 
Harold Clurman, producer 
Robert M. Coates, writer 
Lester Cohen, writer 

Kyle Crichton, editorial staff of Collier's Weekly 
Miriam Allen De Ford, writer 
Paul De Kruif, writer 
Pietro Di Donato, writer 

William F. Dodd, Jr., chairman Anti-Nazi Literature Committee 
Stanley D. Dodge, University of Michigan 

Prof. Df»rothy Douglas, department of economics, Smith College 
IMuriel Draper, writer 

I'rof. L. C. Dunn, professor of Zoology, Columbia University 
Prof. Haakon Chevalier, professor of French, University of California 
Harriet G. Eddy, library specialist 
Prof. George B. Cressey, chairman of the department of geology and geography, 

Syracuse University 
Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild, professor of sociology, New York University- 
Kenneth Fearing, poet 

Prof. Mildred Fairchild, professor of economics, Bryn Mawr College 
Alice Withrow Field, writer 
Sara Bard Field, writer 

William O. Field, Jr., chairman of the board, American Russian Institute 
Irving Fineman, writer 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4259 

Marjorie Fischer, writer 

An.cel Flores, writer, critic 

Waldo Franli, writer 

Wanda Ga.ii, artist 

Hugo Gellert, artist 

Robert Gessner, department of English, New York University 

Prof. Willystlne Goodsell, associate professor of education (retired), Columbia 

University 
3Iortinier Graves, of the American Council of Learned Societies 
Dr. John H. Gray, economist, former president of the American Economics 

Association 
William Gropper, artist 

IMaurice Haiperin, associate editor, Books Abroad 
Earl P. Hanson, explorer, writer 
Prof. Samuel N. Harper, profesosr of Russian language and institutions, Chicago 

University 
Rev. Thomas L. Harris, national executive secretary, American Leagxie for Peace 

and Democracy 
Dashiell Hammett, writer 
Ernest Hemingway 
Granville Hicks, writer 

Prof. Norman E. Himes, department of sociology, Colgate University 
Charles J. Hendley, president, Teachers' Union of the City of New York 
Leo Huberman, writer 
Langston Hughes, poet 
Agatha Hies, writer 

Rev. Otis G. Jackson, rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Flint, Mich. 
Sam Jaffe, actor 
Orrick Johns, poet 
Matthew Josephson, writer 
George Kauffman. playwright 
Prof. Alexander Kaun, associate professor of Slavic languages. University of 

California 
Fred C. Kelly, writer 
Rockwell Kent, artist 

Dr. John A. Kingsbury, social worker, administrative consultant, WPA 
Beatrice Kinkaid, writer 
Lincoln E. Kirstein, ballet producer 
Arthur Kober, playwright 
Alfred Kreymborg, poet 
Edward Lamb, lawyer 
Dr. Corliss Lamont, writer, lecturer 
Margaret I. Lamont, sociologist, writer 
J. J. Lankes, artist 
Jay Leyda, cinema critic 
John Howard Lawson, playwright 
Emit L^ngyel, writer, critic 

Pi'of. Max Lerner, professor of government, Williams College 
Meridel LeSueur, writer 
Meyer Levin, writer 
Prof. Charles W. Lightbody, department of government and history, St. Lawrence 

University 
Robert Morss Lovett, Governor of the "Virgin Islands, an editor of the New 

Republic 
Prof. Halford E. Luccock, Yale University Divinity School 
Katherine Dul're Lumpkin, writer 
Klaus Mann, lecturer, writer, son of Thomas Mann 
Prof. F. O. Mathiessen, associate professor of history and literature, Harvard 

University 
Dr. Anita Marburg, department of English, Sarah Lawrence College 
Dr. George Marshall, economist 
Aline MacMahon, actress 
Clifford T. McAvoy, instructor, department of romance languages, College of the 

City of New York 
Prof. V. J. McGill, professor of philosophy, Hunter College 
Prof. Robert McGregor, Reed College 
Ruth McKenney, writer 



4260 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Darwin J. Meserole, lawyer 

Prof. Herbert A. Miller, professor of economics, Bryn Mawr Ck)llege 

Harvey O'Connor, writer 

Clifford Odets, playwright 

Shaenius O'Sheel, writer, critic 

Mary White Ovington, social worker 

S. J. Perelman, writer 

Dr. Jolin P. Peters, department of internal medicine, Yale University Medical 
School 

Dr. Emily M. Pierson, physician 

Walter N. Polakov, engineer 

Prof. Alan Porter, professor of German, Vassar College 

George D. Pratt, Jr., agriculturist 

John Hyde Preston, writer 

Samuel Putnam, writer 

Prof. Paul Radin, professor of anthropology. University of California 

Prof. Walter Rautenstrauch, professor of industrial engineering, Columbia 
University 

Bernard J. Reis, accountant 

Bertha C. Reynolds, social worker 

Lynn Riggs, playwright 

Col. Raymond Robins, former head of American Red Cross in Russia 

William Rollins, Jr., writer 

Harold J. Rome, composer 

Ralph Roeder, writer 

Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, former head of Jewish Joint Distribution Board 

Eugene Schoen, architect 

Prof. Margaret Schlauch, associate professor of English, New York University 

Prof. Frederick L. Scluuuan, professor of government, Williams College 

Prof. Vida D. Scudder, professor emeritus of English, Wellesley College 

George Seldes, writer 

Vincent Sheean, writer 

Viola Brothers Shore, scenario -writer 

Herman Shumlin. producer 

Prof. Ernest J. Simmons, assistant professor of English literature, Harvard 
University 

Irina Skariatina, writer 

Dr. F. Tredwell Smith, educator 

Dr. Stephenson Smith, president, Oregon Commonwealth Federation 

Hester Sondergaard, actress 

Isobel Walker Soule, writer, editor 

Lionel Stander, actor 

Christina Stead, writer 

A. E. Steig, artist 

Alfred K. Stern, housing specialist 

Dr. Bernhard J. Stei*n, department of sociology, Columbia University 

Donald Ogden Stewart, writer 

Maxwell S. Stewart, associate editor, the Nation 

Paul Strand, producer and photographer 

I'rof. Dirk J. Struik, professor of mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of 
Technologj' 

Robert Tasker, scenario writer 

C. Fayette Taylor, aeronautical engineer, head of automotive laboratories, Mass- 
achusetts Institute of Technology 

James Thurlier, artist, writer 

Rebecca Janney Timbres, social worker, writer 

Jean Starr Untermeyer, poet 

Louis Untermeyer, poet 

Mary Van Kleeck, economist, associate director. International Industrial Re- 
lations Institute 

Stuyvesant Van Veen, artist 

J. Raymond Walsh, economist 

Dr. William Henry Walsh, physician 

Prof. Harry F. Ward, professor of Christian ethics, Union Tlieological Seminary 

Lynd Ward, arti.st 

Morris Watson, New York Newspaper Guild 

Clara Weatherwax, writer 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4261 

Max Weber, artist 

Dr. Gerald Weiidt, director of science and education, New Yorli World's Fair. 

Rev. Robert Whitaker, clergyman and lecturer 

Albert Rhys Williams, writer 

Dr. William Carlos Williams, writer 

Ella Winter, writer 

Ricliard Writiht, writer 

Art Young, artist 

Leane Zugsmith, writer 

Mr. Morris. In Soviet Russia Today in September 1939. 
Senator Eastland. Proceed. 
Mr. Morris. The one point is : 

The Soviet Union continues as always to be a consistent bulwark against Fas- 
cist aggression and works unceasingly for the goal of a peaceful international 
order. 

Senator Eastland. Did this witness sign this ? 

Mr. Morris. He has stated he is one of the signers of this letter. 

Senator Eastland. That was on the eve of the attack on Finland ? 

Mr. Morris. No, this is September 1939, subsequent to the announce- 
ment of the Hitler-Stalin pact. 

Senator Eastland. It was on the eve of the attack on Finland. 

Mr. IVIoRRis. It was before, I think. 

Mr. SouRw^NE. Is this offered for the record? 

Mr. BissoN. I signed that. 

Senator Eastland. Had Poland been attacked at that time? 

Mr. BissoN. Not that I know of. 

Senator Eastland. Not that you know of ? 

Mr. BissoN. I don't think so. My field was primarily the Far 
East, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Eastland. Do you mean to say because j'ou are a far east- 
ern expert you would not know whether Germany attacked Poland 
in September 1939 or not ? 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Theodore Draper? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have. 

Mr. Morris. I wish you would recall whether or not you know him. 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember meeting him. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify this letter, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a document from the files of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations, a photostat of a letter, on the letterhead of New 
Masses, 31 East Twenty-seventh Street, New York City, dated Sep- 
temper 23, 1937, addressed to ''Dear Field" and signed "Theodore 
Draper." 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the first para- 
graph here : 

Dear Field : I have wanted to talk things over with you for some time but 
circumstances always intervened to make it impossible or to cause me to post- 
pone it. Your absence from New York made me decide to write you a rather 
longish letter though perhaps I may see you again before long. Our friend, 
Chi, suggested that I tell you frankly what is bothering me, though it is wholly 
personal, for what advice or assistance you could suggest. With that as intro- 
duction. * * * 

Paragraph 4 reads: 

For this reason, I am going to take a crack at the Guggenheim fellowships this 
year. Incidentally, I am grateful for your permission to use your name in the 
application. Professor Laski of Great Britain has also consented and I am now 
looking for one or two more, besides yourself and Bisson. 



4262 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Does that refresh your recollection at all ? 

Mr. BissoN. This' would seem to indicate that he was looking for a 
letter of recommendation from me. I do not remember whether I gave 
him such a recommendation. I do not remember that I saw him, 
which was my original statement. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we not under the circum- 
stances introduce this into the record at this time. 

Senator ExVStland. Has the FBI attempted to talk with you ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; it has. 

Senator Eastland. Did they ask you a number of questions? 

Mr. BissoN. You mean quite recently? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. Did you give them whatever information they 
asked ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes'. I answered their questions. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify these letters, please, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. JVIandel. These are documents from the files of the IPR, photo- 
static copies of handwritten letters. The first one is dated September 
2, 1946, addressed to "Dear Bill" and signed "Art." 

The second is addressed "Dear Bill," dated September 22, 1946, and 
signed "Art Bisson." 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify those letters as having been written 
by you ? There is going to be no question on them. They are going 
to be put into the record. They are in your own handwriting. I 
would like you to identify them as having been written by you. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. These are my letters. 

Mr. Morris. May they be admitted? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

(The letters referred to were marked "Exhibits Nbs. 733, 734" and 
are as follows:) 

Exhibit No. 733 

Dat-ichi Hotel, 

Tokijo, Sept. 2, 1946. 

Dear Bill: The impossibility of really describing the complicated nexus of 
things here has operated as a bar to writing letters ever since I've arrived 
except those to Faith. In literal terms my output has been none with the one 
exception of a letter carried by Major Everett Sherbourne which I hope he has 
delivered you by now. His book should be a first-class job and I trust that he 
and the IPR may get together on it. 

Your letter reached me here just as I put in for travel orders on October 1st. 
There is some reluctance to let me go, however, and the work here is sufficiently 
rewarding and significant that I aiu in a state of some indecision myself. The 
most difficult problem, of course, is that of a continued separation from the 
family. I should have some definite answer on the matter within a tew days 
now, and will write fully then. 

In my reading of your letter I am in some doubt as to whether you mean that 
I can do the project you have in mind while a full member of the staff of the 
American Council. I should nmch prefer that working basis, as it would give 
me a greater feeling of stability and permanence in my job. 

A reorganization of the former membership (along with new members) of the 
old Council has occurred here, as you probably know if you have received letters 
from Matsuo. So far as I have followed it a good job has been done in a rather 
delicate situation, although some of the older members ai"e still left out and 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4263 

there may be some heart-buiTiings there. I will, of course, join with Herb, 
Quigley, and Miriam in keeping contact with the Japanese group. 

Please give my best regards to all at 1E54. I trust that my exile over here 
will not continue much longer. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Art. 



Exhibit No. 734 

PEL ECO 

MH MAS 

MK LES 

(Penciled notes : ) HER — 10 copies of marked paras. 

Tokyo, Sept. 22, 1946. 

Dear Bill : If I'm going to be a fixture here, I've decided to do a little more 
letter writing than before — I've been remiss almost completely thus far. 

Andrew and I have spending considerable time the last week or so checking up 
on the land reform bill now going through the Diet. It still has some defects 
but on the whole Ladijinsky has done a good job, and I'm more hopeful about 
a thoroughgoing landlord abolition than Zaibatsu dissolution. 

Eleanor Hadley has been working closely with me on virtually all economic 
phases of the occupation, but particularly the Zaibatsu problem and the economic 
control agencies. She is an excellent economist and a grand person, and knows 
Japan well (she was here in 19.38-40). You (or Bill Lockwood) probably know 
of her work on the proto — SWNCO directive on the Zaibatsu when she was in 
the State Department. She returns to Harvard this January to do her thesis on 
the Zaibatsu — she has already passed her Radcliff generals for the doctorate. 
I've asked her whether she couldn't do for the conference a study of what has 
been done on the Zaibatsu under the occupation — not too long a piece, but a 
sort of balance sheet of accomplishments and the job yet to be done. If this 
suggestion is of any use to you please let me know and give some indication of 
length desired. Eleanor would make a most excellent woman member for your 
Amco delegation to London. 

Friday afternoon I had a long talk with Matsuo on the recent developments 
re the new .Japan Council. A preliminary organization meeting on September 
IS crystallized the long job that has been done here during the past six months 
to weed out the older conservative elements and merge those left from the past 
with a new and more liberal group. 

The chairman (or president) of the new Board of Directors will probably be 
Dr. Takano (Twasabui'o), currently president of Radio Tokyo, formerly chief 
of the Ohara Institute of Social Research. The research secretary will be 
Professor Ouchi (Hyoe) of the Public Finance (senior professor) section of 
Tokyo Imperial. Ouchi is a close friend of Tsuru, who hopes that he (Ouchi) 
will be the nucleus around which the liberal-radical academic circle can be 
drawn into the new Council's work. This group already has under way a sym- 
posium on Japan's current problems (mainly the economic side) to which I 
have been asked to contribute a foreword. 

These two will be members of the Board of Directors ex-ofiicio. Other direc- 
tors include : 

Professor Yanaibara (Tadro), of Tokyo Imperial (specialist or International 
economics. 

Prof. Yokota (Kisaburo), of Tokyo Imperial, specialist on International Law. 

Prof. Suekawa (Hiroshi), of Kyoto Imperial University, law faculty. 

Matsukata, Saburo. 

Hani (Motoko), prominent woman publicist, with articles in many journals. 
She is associated with Jiyu Gakuin, a coed school in Tokyo. 

Koike (Atsunosuke), businessman, head of Yamaishi Securities Company. 

Saionji, Kinichi. 

Present at the meeting was also Shibusawa, Keizo. He is willing to stay in 
background (he was Finance Minister in the Shidehara Cabinet earlier this 
year) and help to corral some much needed financial support. On the other 
hand, he may come into the open as Treasurer and member of the Board of Di- 
rectors. With the research secretaryship in Ouchi's hands, Shibusawa is not 
likely to run away with the organization. 



4264 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

It seems unlikely that Takaki (who has been most outspoken in support of a 
Tenno system stronger than the Draft Constitution permits) or Takayarogi (ac- 
tive in the war crimes defense) will join, although both of them maintain an 
indirect and unofficial link with the new organization. 

A Council (Shoin) of about 30 members is being organized of persons from 
various fields. This body may formally choose the directors at the formal 
organization meeting expected in mid-October. Name is Taiheiyo Mondai Cho- 
sakai (Pacific Problems Research Institute) — same as old. AVhen asked, I 
advised them to keep the literal translation for the present instead of calling 
it the Japan Council of the Institute. Immediate problems are oflSce space and 
money. 

Miriam transferred to me your letter to Zhulsou, but unfortunately he had 
just left when I sought to reach him. I presume you do not wish me to mail it 
to him? 

Many thanks for your advice and counsel to Faith when she called you. Give 
my best regards to Mr. Carter and all my friends on both floors. 

Art Bisson. 

Mr. Morris. Will you identify this, Mr. Mandel ? 

Mr. Mandel. This is a photostat of a carl^on copy of a letter from 
the files of the IPR dated September 29, 1939, addressed to Mr. T. A. 
Bisson, Foreign Policy Association, with the typed signature of Owen 
Lattimore, and at the top the initials KM. 

Mr. Morris. I ask you if you can recall having received that letter 
from Mr. Lattimore ? 

Mr. Bisson. Are you going to ask questions on this? 

Mr. Morris. No. 

Mr. Bisson. Yes; this letter was received by me. 

Mr. Morris. May that be received ? , 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 735" and is as 
follows:)- 

Exhibit No. 735 

300 Oilman Hall, 
Johns Hopkins University, 
Baltimore, Md., ^eptemher 29, 1939. 
Mr. T. A. Bisson, 

Foreign Policii Association, 

8 West JfOth Street, New York City. 

Dear Art : You may be out on a limb, but it looks to me like a strong and 
springy limb. In fact, I think it is a splendid article. By this mail I am send- 
ing a copy, as edited. I made a few minor changes, most of them intended to 
make the article less "American," in view of the circulation of Pacific Affairs 
abroad. 

That, incidentally is one of our great problems, as people outside of the United 
States are tremendously interested in the American angle of the Far East, and 
in the way in which Aanerica reacts to each move and each stage out there, 
but at the same time it is better not to write for them just as if they were 
American. 

Well, now what? Are the British and French going to fight? You tell me! 
This morning the Baltimore paper reports an "appeasement" article in the 
"New Statesman and Nation," which of course has always been against Cham- 
berlain's api)easement. 

I can see the futility of fighting to restore the kind of I'oland that Lloyd 
George never liked anyway ; but what I can't imagine are the specific terms 
on which the French and British could liack down in front of Hitler. 

In the meantime the Russians have got everything they asked for in the 
first place as the conditions for entering an alliance with the British and 
French — security against German occupation of the whole of Poland, security 
against German-engineered putsches in the Baltic States. They have got this 
at the cost of terrific hostility in the press, and the jolting up of, I suppose, 
all their more loosely attached adherents abroad. AJm I right in supposing 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4265 

that they may begin to recover from this? In the first place, they are actually 
extending revolutionary principles, at least in Poland. In the second place, 
there are many who respect strength and power who are not penetrable by 
intellectual arguments. 

All this European side of things is a puzzle and a tangle to me ; all I can 
see clearly is that the Chinese are certainly not weakened, and probably, or 
at least potentially, strengthened. 
Yours, 

Owen Lattimoke. 

OL:Y 

Mr. Morris. Did you write an article in the Far Eastern Survey in 
August 1944 in anticipation of a negotiated peace with Japan, or in 
connection with peace with Japan? 

Mr. BissoN. What is the title? 

Mr. Morris. Japan Prepares for Peace Offensive. 

I show you the Far Eastern Survey of that date and ask you if 
that is your article? 

Mr. BissoN. Are there going to be questions on this ? 

Mr. ]\loRRis. Is this your article ? 

Mr. BissoN, Yes ; it is. 

Mr. Morris. May that be received into the record ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 736" and is 
as follows : ) 

Exhibit No. 736 

[Source: Far Eastern Survey, American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations, August 9, 

1944, vol. 13, No. 16] 

Japan Prepares for Peace Offensive 
(By T. A. Bisson) 

The Tojo Cabinet's resignation en bloc on July IS is an impressive tribute 
to the weight of the Pacific offensive, currently tearing the vitals out of Japan's 
strongholds in the Marianas. This onslaught was seconded by the first massive 
blows from the B-29's on Japan's home soil — a factor which also counts heavily 
in Japanese home-front reactions. There is deep-seated apprehension among the 
Japanese that no preparations which their rulers can make will be sufficient 
to overcome their country's peculiar vulnerability to attack from the air, once 
such attack becomes large-scale and continuous. Finally, even before the 
attempt on Hitler's life, the Japanese were painfully noting the ominous col- 
lapse of Germany's military power, spectacularly evident in the crumbling of 
the eastern front before the Russian drives but also seen in the breaching of 
Hitler's boasted Atlantic Wall and the steady Allied progress in Italy. 

The series of drastic Japanese defeats in tlie Pacific, culminating in the loss 
of Saipan, directly forced the resignation of the Japanese Cabinet. Between 
July 10 and IS Tojo desperately maneuvered to save his cabinet by conces- 
sions which separated the military and naval staff commands from the War 
and Navy Ministries. Admiral Shigetaro Shimada first insisted that he should 
be divested of one of his two concurrent posts — Chief of the Naval Staff and 
Minister of the Navy. To this measure Tojo was forced to consent, and for 
the purpose appointed Admiral Naokuni Nomura to the Navy Ministry on 
July 17, leaving Admiral Shimada as Chief of the Naval Staff. Admiral Nonmra 
must have set an unusual precedent, since — if the announced dates are cor- 
rect — he retained his new post for exactly one day. But this concession was 
not enough to appease the opposition to Tojo and on July IS it was announced 
that General Yoshijiro I'mezu had become Chief of the Army Staff, succeeding 
General Tojo, who had "been relieved of his concurrent post." These dates, it 
should be noted, are announcements by the Cabinet Board of Information after 
the changes had been made. The actual changes may have preceded the an- 
nouncements by a day or two, since the entire cabinet finally resigned on July 18. 
Thus Tojo's eleventh-hour attempt to save his cabinet completely failed. 



4266 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

While the cabinet resignation may be attributed mainly to Japan's military- 
naval defeats, for which To jo was made to accept responsibility, an additional 
set of factors must be taken into account iu order to explain the composition 
of the new cabinet. These factors are in part external, affecting the current 
status of the war in its global aspects. Japanese leaders, military as well as 
civilian, are not unaware of the effects which the coming defeat of Germany 
will have on Japan's war prospects. The Japanese leadership has always been 
acutely sensitive to the world setting within which it has plotted the successive 
steps in the program of national aggrandizement. It now begins to recognize, 
with full dread of the consequences, that the attack on Pearl Harbor consti- 
tutes the greatest miscalculation of Japanese diplomacy in the 7G years since the 
Restoration. And it is now taking the preliminary internal measures which, 
it hopes, may offer a prospect of salvaging the essential portions of the Empire 
from the wreckage of defeat. It is cleverly preparing the groundwork for that 
offer of a negotiated peace against which the United Nations must gird them- 
selves in the aftermath of Nazi Germany's collapse. 

These external factors, however, are but a part of the total complex situation 
in Japan which helps to explain the composition of the Koiso cabinet and gives 
us some assurance in gaging the role which it is expected to perform. The 
evolution of the Tojo cabinet, which has held office for the lengthy term of nearly 
3 years, has logically concluded in the establishment of a government which 
relegates the armed services to their purely military and naval functions and 
assigns one man to do one job. 

TOJO CABINET UNIQXJE 

In these respects, the Tojo cabinet was an extraordinary anomaly in Japanese 
constitutional history. For a Japanese minister to hold two concurrent posts 
was a common practice. But never before did one man succeed in grasping so 
many of the reins of government in his hands as did Tojo. At the outset, in 
October ll»41, Tojo was Premier, War Minister, and Home Minister. He held 
the latter post until the success of the initial attacks was complete, thus assuring 
no untoward reactions on the home front. The first two posts he held until the 
end. To these he had added the extremely important offices of Munitions 
Minister, in control of war production, and Army Chief of Staff. 

Two points may be made in this regard. No one man could be Premier, War 
Minister, Chief of Staff, and Munitions Minister, all at the same time, without 
detriment to administrative efficiency. In actual fact, much of the routine 
and even policy-forming activities of these positions had to be carried out by 
the Vice-Ministers or the Vice Chief of Staff. But — and this is the second point — 
such a condition immediately tended to create friction or animosity and to lead 
to charges of one-man dictatorship. So long as things went well, Tojo could 
reply that his unimpeded control gave unity and cohesive direction to the war 
effort. When defeats came in monotonous succession, this position could no 
longer be maintained ; at the end it turned into a disadvantage for Tojo, cul- 
minating in his downfall. 

On the eve of the July IS overthrow, the earlier scope of Tojo's dictatorial 
powers had in reality been whittled down to a considerable extent. Under his 
effective control was left essentially the general direction of the cabinet and of 
the Army, but other phases of domestic administration had largely slipped 
from his grasp. This evolution, in accordance with normal Japanese constitu- 
tional practice, had come about so gradually as to be almost unnoticed. Over a 
period of nearly 3 years, many changes in cabinet portfolios would necessarily 
occur iu Japan and it is by these changes that the political current is to be dis- 
cerned. In the Tojo cabinet the ministerial shifts had been even more numer- 
ous than usual. They bad occurred, as might be expected, largely in response 
to the changing fortunes of the war hut also as a result of the pressure of those 
groups in the ruling circle which felt that Tojo had invaded their legitimate 
spheres. 

The general drift is clearly indicated by several of the more important shifts. 
On September 1, 1942, despite the Midway defeat, Tojo was still able to announce 
establishment of the Greater East Asia Ministry, to accept the protest resigna- 
tion of Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, and to appoint Masayuk Tani, an Army 
favorite, in place of Tojo. The snub to the Foreign Office crowd was pronounced. 
With the loss of Guadalcanal, however, it Ijecame increasingly apparent that Tojo 
was meeting opposition to which he was forced to make concessions. He over- 
played his hand in seeking extraordinary dictatorial powers to cope with the 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4267 

crisis of production, raet unexpectedly strong opposition on this score in the 
Diet in Januarv-Februarv 11)43, and ultimately— on March 17, 1943— announced 
that a ministerial-ranli; Council of seven financial and industrial magnates would 
advise him on the application of his emergency powers. 

Further cabinet shifts on April 20, 1943, brought Mamoru Shigemitsu, a For- 
eign Ofliee stalwart, to the Foreign Ministry and introduced two of the old 
party leaders into the cabinet. Within the Munitions Ministry, formed No- 
vember 1, 1943, Tojo's undivided control was challenged by the business leaders, 
especially in the person of Ginjiro Fujihara, who was made State Minister 
^^•ithout Portfolio on November 17 and became increasingly active in the pro- 
duction effort. The trend was unmistakable. It meant the return to the 
Foreign Office, of the business magnates, and of the party leaders to their old 
spheres of jurisdiction within the normal balance of group interests. 

Under these internal conditions, added to the external factors of the military 
defeat in Europe and Asia, the Emperor's advisers were confronted on July 
18 with the Tojo cabinet's resignation. In this case, it is important to observe 
that evervthing was done pro forma. Marquis Koichi Kido, Lord Keeper of the 
Privy Seal, was received in audience by the Emperor to discuss the selection 
of the next cabinet. The Elder Statesmen who used to perform the delicate 
constitutional function of advising the Emperor on the choice of a new Premier 
are no longer available, but since their passing a new constitutional practice 
has been sedulously developed. With Marquis Kido came the seven living ex- 
Premiers, the Presklent of the Privy Council. Yoshimichi Kara, and the out- 
going Premier, General Tojo. A glance at the ex-Premiers is instructive, in 
view of the crucial significance of their new constitutional role. The list com- 
prises Baron Reijiro Wakatsuki, Admiral Keisuke Okada, Koki Hirota, Prince 
Fumimore Konove, Baron Kiichiro Hiranuma, General Nobuyuki Abe, and Ad- 
miral Mitsumasa Yonai. Everyone in this group has distinguished himself, 
in one war or another, by working against the Army extremists. Hara and Kido 
are naturallv of the snme stamp. By the addition of Tojo, the overwhelmingly 
conservative" cast of this group of constitutional advisers is hardly altered. 
This factor must be steadily kept in mind when future cabinet changes are 
under consideration. 

In the present instance, i. e., the formation of the Koiso cabinet, the group 
of advisers worked in expert fashion to secure the results desired. The basic 
essential, of course, was to reconstitute a strong fighting team which would 
carry on the war with the utmost energy, efiiciency and unity, so far as the 
fighting services were concerned. There can be little doubt that this objective 
was achieved. Five senior military and naval men hold the major posts. 
Koiso, as Premier, has the key position. As an old Kwantung Army man, he 
will obviously work hand in hand with General Yoshijiro Umezu, new Chief of 
the Army Staff, who comes directly from command of the Kv>antung Army in 
Manchuria. Admiral Shigetaro Shimada. evidently a capable naval technician, 
retains his post of Chief of the Navy Staff. Admiral Yonai, as Navy Minister, 
and Field Marshal Gen Sugiyama, as War Minister, able leaders but by no 
means extremist, bring to the cabinet posts a conservative weight that balances 
the whole team. The princple of "one man to one post"' is rigidly adhered to in 
these changes, and there can be no blinking the fact that a vigorous prosecution 
of the war can be expected from this group of leaders. 

The political constituents of the new cabinet, however, carry the evolution 
which was proceeding within the Tojo cabinet to a new stage. General Koiso 
holds the single post of Premier, and no other. Not only is his direct outreach 
far less than that of Tojo, so far as cabinet portfolios are concerned, but in addi- 
tion Navy Minister Yonai — a former Premier of moderate outlook — has been 
made Deputy Prime Minister. There is no good reason to believe that the 
creation of this post, rather unusual in Japanese constitutional practice, im- 
plies that Koiso and Yonai may work at cross purposes. 

Koiso is, like Tojo, and old Kwantung Army man of the most aggressive 
type, and as such a good front man personifying determination to wage 
the war to a successful conclusion. He was, however, a colleague of Yonai's 
in the Hiranuma cabinet of 1939, as Overseas Minister, and held the same post 
in the 1940 cabinet headed by Yonai. During this period Koiso showed himself 
exceedingly active in furthering the Navy's program of expansion in Southeast 
Asia, especially as affecting the Netherlands Indies. There is thus every war- 
rant for believing that the yoking together of General Koiso, the "extremist" 
Premier, and Admiral Yonai, the "moderate" Deputy Premier, will prove a 



4268 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

smooth-working combination instead of the reverse. It will help to overcome 
the friction that had clearly developed between the Army and Navy commands 
at the close of Tojo's administration. 

The marked curtailment of General Koiso's power in the new cabinet, as con- 
ti-asted with Tojo's former position, is nevertheless a political factor of great 
importance. This change goes much further, moreover, thnn in relegating Koiso 
to the premiership alone and appointing a deputy to act with him. All the other 
traditional Japanese group interests — the diplomats, the businessmen, and the 
former party leaders — have resumed the regular administrative spheres and 
powers held in normal times. 

CONSERVATIVES STAGE COMEBACK 

Take the position of Foreign Minister Shigemitsu as one outstanding example 
of the shift back to normalcy. He, and not an Army man, holds the only ma.ior 
concurrent post in the cabinet. The Greater East Asia Ministry, set up by the 
military in order to keep administration of conquered territories in their own 
hands, now passes back to control of the Foreign OlTice. The change is boldly 
stated to be aimed at securing unified diplomacy. At one stroke the long 
history of the Army's determined efforts to maintain administrative control of 
territory conquered since 1931, exemplified in the political struggles attending 
formation of the Manchurian Affairs Board, the China Affairs Board and GEA 
Ministry itself, is nulified. The Foreign Ofiice returns to its own — and, be it 
noted, thereby becomes responsible for the conduct of negotiations which could 
affect the disposal of Japan's nexus of ruling groups — such agreement will be 
forthcoming. 

Hardly less significant of the changing political tide is the appointment of 
Ginjiro Fujihara, outstanding Japanese industrialist, as head of the Munitions 
Ministry. Tojo himself had held this portfolio in the old cabinet and the Vice- 
Minister had been Shinsuke Kishi, a former Manchukuo bureaucrat. Fujihara, 
carrying the ball for the business interests, had been critical of Tojo's production 
efforts even before the Munitions Ministry was established. After its forma- 
tion, as noted, he had played an increasingly significant role in spurring pro- 
duction as State Minister. Now he takes over full control. 

In addition no less than four of the old-time Koiso cabinet. Yonezo Maeda, 
former Seiyukai leader, becomes Transportation and Communications Minister, 
while Toshio Shimada is made Agriculture and Conunerce Minister. These 
posts cover the administrative sphere which was normally occupied by the 
party leaders in the heyday of their power. Botii Chuji Machida, former 
Minseito presided now described as dean of political circles, and Count Hideo 
Kodama, from the Kenkyukai group in the House of Peers, are accorded the 
dignified posts of Ministers of State Affairs (without portfolio). 

Appointments to other cabinet posts follow the same trend. The Home Min- 
istry goes to Shigeo Odate, a cai'eer bureaucrat in the legal field with some 
Manchukuo experience, instead of to an Army man. The Finance Ministry is 
taken by Sotaro Ishiwata, a bureaucrat who held the same post in the Hiranuma 
and Yonai cabinets. (Nine out of the 16 newly appointed ministers held office 
in these two cabinets, in itself a very revealing fact.) Taketora Ogata, State 
Minister and President of the Information Board, was vice-president of the 
AsAHi, also representing a shift from the career bureaucrats that have previously 
held this post. Hiromasa IMatsuzaka. New Justice Minister, had been the Pro- 
curator General, while Hisatada Hirose, Welfare Minister, had also been a 
member of the Yonai cabinet. Lt. Gen. Harushige Ninomiya, as Education Min- 
ister, is the sole military leader holding a normally civilian post. 

The far-reaching political realignment indicated by these changes does not 
imply that there will be a slackening in Japan's war effort. More probably the 
reverse is true. The caliber of the men chosen to lead the war and home fronts, 
characterized by ability, experience, and seniority, may well infuse greater 
efficiency and drive into the prosecution of the war. The Koiso cabinet's per- 
sonnel, moreover, despite surface indications to the contrary, is essentially far 
more unified than Tojo's cabinet had become. Most of its members have ^^ ^rked 
closely together in the past, understand each other thoroughly, and have con- 
fidence in each other's ability. For the immediate continuation of a stubborn 
defensive fight, therefore, vigorous leadership may be expected from this cabinet. 

Looking somewhat beyond the next few months, however, it is vitally necessary 
to recognize the second line of defense which the Emperor's far-seeing advisers 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4269 

have established in the making of this cabinet. Its political complexion proves 
unmistakably that it is a way-station on the road to the offer of a compromise 
peace. Only one additional change remains to be made in the cabinet as now 
constituted 'in order to give the political authority to seek terms. This change 
would be in the premiership. Yonai, already Deputy Prime Minister, could 
succeed Koiso ; or General Nobuyuki Abe, who succeeded Koiso as Governor- 
General of Korea, could be brought home for the task. Such a development is 
virtually inevitable, as the blows in the Pacific strike closer to Japan. And the 
scope of the political shift already made indicates that the final change will be 
smoothly accomplished. If the elder statesmen's plans succeed, there will be 
no civil disturbances, as in Germany, when the decision to make the peace offer 
is eventually taken. The groundwork has been too carefully laid already in the 
Koiso cabinet. Japan's Army-Navy leadership will in all probability support 
the move toward a compromise settlement. 

POSSIBLE TKRMS OF PEACE OFFER 

This offer will be carefully timed. We can probably expect it in the wake of 
Germany's final collapse, when Britain and the United States are in the trough of 
the wave, wrestling with such problems as the transfer of armed forces and equii> 
ment to the Pacific, and industrial reconvePBion. The terms will go far, possibly 
even to the extent of relinquishing all Japan's southern conquests and all of 
China Proper. IManchuria and Korea will not be offered, since they are both 
necessary for Japan if it is to remain a great power. 

Is there any danger that this offer will be favorably entertained by the United 
States and Britain? If so, the time to reckon with the threat is now, for the 
Koiso cabinet strongly indicates that the day of the offer is approaching. Some 
voices will almost certainly be raised in favor of acceptance. It is to be hoped 
that they will be a small minority. There can be no question as to what such 
acceptance would mean. With the raw materials and industrial facilities of 
Korea and Manchuria, both intensively developed in the past decade, Japan would 
have all the necessary resources to heal the wounds of this war and lay careful 
plans for a full success in the next one. Within Japan itself the domination of 
the armed services, the monarchist bureaucracy and the business groups would be 
confirmed, and the Japanese people would again be yoked to- the war chariot of 
their oppressors. China, disillusioned in the Western democracies, might fall 
an easy prey to the machinations of Japan's agents engaged in the work of 
preparation for the new conflict. These are the essential factors which make it 
necessary that the task now well begun be fully completed. The cost of stopping 
halfway to victoi-y in the Pacific is too great to pay. 

Mr. Morris. I offer you a partial list of writings by T, A. Bisson 
which has been compiled by Mr. Mandel. I ask you if you will look 
at that list and determine whether or not there are any inaccuracies. 

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that may not have to be done today. If 
the witness simply indicates he will so comply with this request, we can 
do that by subsequent correspondence and save time. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; that is all right. This is supposed to be a com- 
plete compilation ? 

Mr. Morris. Read the heading there. 

Mr. BissoN. Partial list. 

Mr. Morris. If you want to add anything to that list by title, by 
all means do it. 

Look at the last page, please. The last page is writings of Frederick 
Spencer. There are nine articles on that list, I believe. I guess there 
are more than nine. There are 14 articles and reviews written for 
China Today under the name of Frederick Spencer. At the same time 
will you tell us whether or not all of those articles were written by you? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. You have testified that you used the pen name of 
Frederick Spencer ? 

88348— 52— pt. 12 16 



4270 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. BissoN. You mean ^Yhen I send back a statement on this. 

Mr. IMoRRis. On this, we will have to have sworn testimony and we 
should do that here. Whether or not all of these 14 items, re\'iews 
and articles were in fact written by you I mean. Can you determine 
that now ? 

Mr. BissoN. Do you have copies of those magazines here? 

Mr. Morris. We have, Mr. Chairman. I wish you could determine 
now in the interest of time. 

Mr. BissoN. It was my testimony and it is my knowledge of the 
articles in China Today under Frederick Spencer were by me, so 
that should cover this. 

Senator Eastland. That may be admitted. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 737" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 737 
Partial List of Writings by T. A. Bisson 

America's Par Eastern Policy, IPR Inquiry Series. 

Aspects of Wartime Economic Control in Japan, Secretariat Paper No. 2, 9th 
Conference IPR, Jan. 1945. 

American Policy in the Far East, 1931-40, IPR Inquiry Series, 1939. 

Japan's War Economy, Publication International Secretariat, IPR, Macmillan 
Co., 1945. 

America's Far Eastern Policy, IPR Inquiry Series, Macmillan Co., 1945. 

Prospects for Democracy in Japan, Published Under Auspices International 
Secretariat, IPR, 1949. 

Japan in China, Macmillan Co., 1938. 

AMERASIA 

(Editorial) 1 Sept. 1935. 

Behind Japan's Internal Crisis June 1937. 

Mao Tse-tung Analyzes Nanking — An Interview Oct. 1937. 

Aikawa Asks for Fifty Millions March 19.38. 

Aikawa's "Open Door" (editorial) April 1938. 

Lessons of Taierhchwang (editorial) May 1938 

After Suchow, What? (editorial) June 1938. 

Japan Beats a Retreat (editorial) Aug. 1938. 

A Bold Proposal (editorial) Sept. 1938. - 

Observations on Fascism in Japan Sept. 1938. 

Japan and the Open Door (editorial) Oct. 1938. 

No Collaboration With Chamberlain (editorial) Nov. 1938. 

Reviews : 

Imperial Japan : 1926-1938, by A. Morgan Nov. 1938. 

Japan : The Hungry Guest, by G. C. Allen Nov. 1938. 

Hemisphere Armaments and the Open Door Dec. 1938. 

Mr. Bisson Replies to Mr. Nauano Jan. 1939. 

How the Axis Became a Triangle Feb. 1939. 

Japan's Next Move (editorial) March 1939 

Can Britain "Deal" With Japan (editorial) July 1939. 

Another Chance for Cbamberlain (editorial) Aug. 19.39. 

Japan Picks Up the Pieces (editorial) Sept. 19.39. 

What Kind of "Peace" in the Far East Nov. 1939. 

No Progress in Puppet Land Puppetry (editorial) Dec. 1939. 

Review : The Inner Asian Frontiers of China, by Owen May 1940. 
Lattimore. 

Review : India Today, by R. Palme Dutt Dec. 1940. 

Japan's "New Structvire" Falters May 1941. 

Toward Winning Far Eastern Security Oct. 1941. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4271 



FAB EASTERN SURVEY 

The Suzuki Cabinet May 9, 1945. 

Nationalization by Request Aug. 1, 1945. 

People's Army in Japan Aug. 15, 1945. 

Japan Prepares for Peace Offensive Aug. 9, 1944. 

China's Part in a Coalition War July 14, 1943. 

Japan's New Industrial Conversion Program Sept. 8, 1943. 

Reparations and Reform in Japan, Vol. XVI, 1947. 

FOREIGN POLICY REPORTS 

America's Dilemma in the Far East July 1, 1940. 

Japan's "New Structure" April 15, 1941. 

FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION 

Showdown in the Orient, World Affairs Pamphlets, No. 8 Apr. 1940. 

Clash in the Pacitic, by T. A. Bisson and Kyllis Alexander 

Goslin, Headline Books. 
Shadow Over Asia — the Rise of Militant Japan, Headline 

Books. 

SOVIET RUSSIA TODAY 

Far Eastern Front Against Aggression Nov. 1938. 

To All Active Supporters of Democracy and Peace — Open Sept. 1939. 
Letter signed by T. A. Bisson. 

PACIFIC AFFAIRS 

The United States and the Far East Jan. 1932. 

Review : Sun Yat Sen vs. Communism, by Maurice Williams Sept. 1932. 

The United States in the Pacific Dec. 1932. 

Japan Without Germany Dec. 1939. 

The Price of Peace for Japan Mar. 1944. 

Review : Battle Hymn of China, by Agnes Smedley Mar. 1944. 

Review : The Japanese New Order in Asia, by Paul Einzy June 1944. 

Japan as a Political Organism Dec. 1944. 

The Zaibatsu's Wartime Role Dec. 1945. 

The United States and the Orient, American National Survey, IPR 

1118, 1930, Vol. III. 
Problems of War Production Control in Japan, 1943, Vol. XVI. 
Increase of Zaibatsu Predominance in Wartime Japan, 1945, Vol. 

XVIII. 

CHINA TODAY 

Under -pseudonym of Frederick Spencer 

Nanking Clasps Hands With China Oct. 1934. 

Japan Takes Over Shanghai Nov. 1934. 

Review : Twilight in the Forbidden City, by Reginald F. Johnston, Do. 

Chiang Kai-shek's Dictatorship Stumbles ^ Dec. 1934. 

Review : China, by L. A. Lydall Do. 

To the American People (Open Letter) (signed by T. A. Bisson Feb. 1935. 
and Frederick Spencer). 

Chiang Kai-shek Yields to Japan * Mai'. 1935. 

Chiang Kai-shek "Rehabilitates" Kiangsi May 1935. 

Review : 

The Case for Manchoukuo, by Geo. Bronson Do. 

Toward Understanding Japan, by Sidney L. Gulick Do. 

Japan Calls the Tune July 1935. 

The Missionaries Must Choose October 1935. 

Chiang Kai-shek Licks Japan's Boots Nov. 1935. 

The Same Old Wheeze Do. 

Students Resist Nanking Betrayal Feb. 1936. 

Case Studies in Japanese Imperialism Do. 

Behind the Murders in Tokyo April 1936. 

Viscount Ishii, Imperialist Diplomat — June 1936. 

The Gangly Days of American Imperialism August 1936. 



4272 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Esther Carroll ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. How well ? 

INIr. BissoN. I knew her from the American Friends of the Chinese 
People. 

Mr. Morris. Were you a member of that organization ? 

Mr, BissoN. I was. 

Mr, Morris, Did you ever speak under the auspices of the American 
League for Peace and Democracy ? 

Mr. BissoN, Yes ; I imagine so, 

Mr, Morris. "VVliat year ? 

Mr, BissoN. I don't recall the date. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet Susumu Okano in Japan ? 

Mr. BissoN, Yes, Mr, Okano, as I remember, was interviewed by 
several members of the Government Section, 

Mr. Morris. He was the head of the Japanese Communist Party ? 

Mr, BissoN. Yes. 

Mr, Morris. Did you meet him in connection with official duties? 

Mr. BissoK. Yes, 

ISIr. Morris, I have no more questions. We do have one more ex- 
hibit. This is the Minutes of the Annual ]\Iembersliip Meeting of the 
American Friends of the Chinese People, dated January 23, 1938. 

Senator Eastland. It will be admitted. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 738," and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 738 

Annual Membership Meeting of the American Friends op the Chinese People 

January 23, 1938—2 : 00 P. M. 

Meeting opened by Mr. Julius Loeb who introduced the chairman for the day — 
Mr. Maxwell S. Stewart. 

Mr. Stewart announces the Order of Business : 

1. Discussion by Mr. T. A. Bisson. 

2. Reports of work. 

3. Discussion on reports. 

4. Election of officers. 

Mr. Bisson : Mr. Bisson pointed out the more optimistic perspective of the 
Chinese situation. Whereas five years ago all China was rent with partisan 
difference and political disunity, today the country is united. Despite Hirota's 
three demands, the infiltration of Japanese control in East Hopei and the attempt 
to invade Suiyuan, the Kuomintang was still waging war on the Communist 
forces. 

The demand for unity was, however, growing steadily until finally the Generalis- 
simo was detained at Sian by the rebellious troops under Chang Hsueh-liang 
who refused to fight their countrymen while the enemy kept advancing. In the 
spring of 1937 the Kuomintang could no longer hesitate and this led up to the 
present united-front situation. There are, however, some groups within the 
Kuomintang opposed to the arming of the population. 

China more and more takes her place among the anti-fascist nations of the 
world. Her relations with the Soviet Union are more cordial than they have 
been in the last ten years. 

Mr. Bisson concluded his report with an analysis of tlie military situation. 
He emphasizetl the necessity of organizing the peasantry for active defense and 
the extension of guerrilla warfare. 

A brief period of questions and discussion followed. 

reports of work 

Mr. Julius Loeb (on history of organization) : This organization was started 
on January 4th, 1933. Our activities during the past were mainly educational. 
Our Lecture Bureau, which includes Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speakers, 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4273 

has sent lecturers to all sorts of groups, and who have spoken to thousands of 
people monthly. We have a research staff and a School for Far Eastern Studies. 
Our other activities consist of holding mass meetings, sending delegates to various 
peace congresses and conferences, picketing, and holding demonstrations before 
the Japanese Consulate's OfBce and at Brooklyn docks where Japanese ships are 
being loaded with scrap iron. Several years ago we produced a documentai-y 
film, "The Birth of New China." 

We started to publish a "Monthly Bulletin" in July 1933. By January 1934 
the mimeographed China Today was issued. The printed form was published 
October 1934, and has been issued consecutively every month since. It is the 
only magazine of its kind printed in the English language. Subscription price 
is $1.00 yearly ; single copy, 10(^. We print ten thousand copies. The i..agazine 
circulates throughout the United States and in foreign countries. Our publica- 
tion is barred in Japan. 

The educational activities have been intensified and the membership and sub- 
scribers of our magazine have increased. A branch has been established in San 
Francisco, Portland, Chicago, and a group is functioning in Los Angeles. In the 
international field, Friends of the Chinese People have been established in Canada, 
Mexico, France, and in the Philippine Islands. A smaller group which has been 
operating in England recently merged with other larger groups which are helping 
China. 

Having anticipated the present events in China, we were not unprepared for 
what we have to do now. We are holding larger meetings, have created a Boycott 
Committee, have held several anti-silk parades, and increased our picketing work, 
started to send organizers and lecturers out of town, and are increasing our efforts 
for the collection of funds for China's aid. From now on our work will be more 
national in scope than ever before. We must assist the Chinese people in all 
possible ways. By so doing we will justify our name, the American Friends of 
the Chinese People. 

E. A. Schachner (editor, China Today) : "I don't know of any oi'ganization 
anywhere, considering the size and the number of people working with it, who do 
more good in the direction it wants to go than this organization. Perhaps the 
most effective weapon in the country on China is the magazine China Today. 
The problem that faces us is very clearly this : to continue to make China 
Today an effective factor in disseminating accurate information on China. We 
have got to be an expression in this country of all the various movements that 
are helping China at this moment. 

"Our main object is the problem of funds. We have now the best correspond- 
ents on China as contributing editors. Our big difficulty is to get this magazine 
in the hands of the tens of thousands of interested Americans. We hope to 
improve the format considerably and increase the circulation in the very near 
future. We may start this very month with a new cover. We have already 
Increased the size of the magazine by four pages. We haven't a circulation 
manager as yet, but hope to remedy the condition. I think if we get the coopera- 
tion from the executive council and from the friends of the organization, we 
can feel sure that the fine traditions of the organization will be continued and 
that China Today will continue to be an important weapon in the country for 
the help that all of us want to give to the liberation and independence of the 
Chinese people." 

Esther Carroll (Organization Secretary) : "In 1934-85 only small groups of 
people were ready to listen to the message of China. All doubted Chinese will- 
ingness and ability to fight for her territorial integrity and independence. Then 
our speakers, our magazine China Today, our forums, brought to the American 
public a better understanding of China's histoi-y, China's art, China's culture, 
and China's love for freedom. * * * 

"When aggression in Spain broke out we knew that aggression in the Far East 
would follow. We knew that the aggressive fascist powers would want to ignite 
the flames of war in Asia too. But this time when Japan struck at China, when 
the heavy boot of the Japanese military swept through the ancient and beau- 
tiful cities, when the bombs of the Japanese war planes brought death and ruin 
to Shanghai, Nanking — a united and determined China came into being. The 
rest of the world, stirred and indignant, called for all support to the Chinese 
people and defeat of the Japanese aggressors. It was the voice calling for de- 
fense of a free Spain. * * * 

"Such peace-loving Japanese friends like Mr. Kubota, Miss INIatsui, Mr. Okano 
and others made it possible for us to act properly, timely. It was this team- 
work and wise counsel that made it possible for us to organize the first big 
protest meeting on August 4th at the New School for Social Research to organize 



4274 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

the successful and colorful mass meeting at Madison Square Garden together 
with the American League for Peace and Democracy on October 1st, for the 
airplanes and tugboats equipped with loudspeakers protesting the shipment of 
scrap iron to Japan, for the organization of the antisilk parade in New York, 
the participation of ten delegates equipped with speakers, posters, leaflets who 
went to the Congress for Peace and Democracy held in Pittsburgh. The send- 
ing of fraternal delegates to the American Federation of Labor and Committee 
for Industrial Organization conventions. It was with the help of our Japanese 
friends that we gave deserving 'receptions' and 'send-offs' to the Japanese war 
envoys who came to this country. And the special introductions which we 
gave* for the Japanese labor misleader Bunji Suzuki who came here to defend 
his government. So much so that he never reached the east coast but went cry- 
ing about the lack of appreciation on the part of American labor for the 
humanitarian aims of his government. 

"It was with the help and advice of our Chinese and Japanese friends that 
we were able to have a series of demonstrations in front of many Japanese 
consulates throughout the country the day following the bombing of the 'Panay' 
and to distribute 120.000 leaflets in one week in the city of New York alone dur- 
ing the showing of the film. Over half a million pieces of literature and hun- 
dreds of thousands of buttons were sold and distributed. 

"Branches of our organization were set up nationally and internationally. 
Everywhere people are clamoring for help and guidance. We hope to imme- 
diately after this meeting and with your help to raise the necessary funds for 
the purpose of sending out the best people of our staff on a tour together with 
Jack Chen and other Chinese friends who have kindly consented to participate 
and help. 

"Relief work is not going fast enough. But good beginnings were made every- 
where. Funds shoiild be raised for medical aid, for doctors and nurses, and food 
to go in a constant stream to China. The boycott movement — well on its way must 
be rolled uphill faster. China Today, our magazine, must gain 2,000 new sub- 
scribers and thousands of additional readers in the next few months. We must 
intensify and increase throughout the country, pressure brought to bear on our 
government for an active peace policy, aid to China, and an embargo against 
Japan the aggressor. Let us help the people of our country to, in the spirit of 
true American tradition, give every substantial, moral, and material help to 
China in her fight for freedom, independence, progress, and world peace." 

Conrad Komorowski (Educational Director) : Mr. Komorowski reported that 
the work of the Educational Committee was not quite satisfactory as yet. He 
pointed out that the feeling of sympathy for China is growing much faster than 
our organizational work is. The movement is growing by such leaps and Iiounds 
that we find ourselves lagging behind it. As an example of the good work the 
Educational Committee has done he mentioned the fact that in the last six or 
seven weeks the Lecture Bureau has sent out speakers who have reached ap- 
proximately 10,000 people. He stressed that we must mal^^e new contact.s — church 
groups, peace organizations, and trade-unions. We must utilize the radio. An- 
other shortcoming is that we have no meetings for the speakers where they can 
discuss their work and settle mutual problems. This must be done soon, and 
also the issuance of a bulletin dealing specifically with the problems of the 
speakers and outlining facts for them. 

The Library must be enlarged and improved to the point where it will be an 
actual help to the research workers. In this connection Mr. Rodgers was com- 
mended for the splendid work he has been doing in the research field. A research 
committee must be built around him to help carry on the work. The much- 
discussed speakers' class will be started some time in February. The plan is to 
get many new people from different organizations who can take our course and 
then return to their organizations to carry on the work there. One of the func- 
tions of the Educational Committee is to take care of the publicity that comes out 
of the office. With a larger, more efficient committee this can be done. 

Mr. Komorowski concluded his report by appealing for volunteers for the 
Educational Committee. He urged all the members to bring to him the r>anies 
of organizations, particularly church, peace, and trade-unions, which can be con- 
tacted by the Committee. In this way we can expand the work of the Committee 
and the organization. 

Helen Holman (on Negro work) : Miss Holman spoke briefly on our work among 
the Negro people in Harlem. She emphasized that with Negro nationalist 
movements flourishing in Harlem, it is very important for our organization to 
become entrenched among the Negro people there and dispel all incorrect im- 
pressions that "Japan is a friend of the darker races," etc. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4275 

Mrs. Julia Cliurcli Kolar (Boycott Committee) : "In reviewing and setting clown 
the actual work done by this committee since the first date recorded, that of 
September 10th, I came to this conclusion, that the results are amazing in com- 
parison to effort put forth. On Oc-tober 2nd in the "Nation' we read the first call 
for the boycott in the voice of Mr. Maxwell Stewart. On October 6th, fifteen 
women picketed a Woolworth store and ours were the first feet to be marching 
for the boycott as far as I know. * * * 

"We visited the Woolworth management in the Woolworth Building; we also 
called upon the executives in Macy's, Gimbels, Wanamakers', H. L. Green Co. 
We suggested they remove Japanese goods from their counters and make a 
statement to that effect. Leaflets were distributed. In December we had the 
Christmas banners. On Oct. 19th we had a picket line at the Commodity Ex- 
change followed by a street meeting which was very successful, drawing a large 
crowd and which was written up in the papers. On Oct. 13th we visited the 
Viscous Company to get information about rayon for hose, and on the 14th five 
of us went as a delegation to the National Hosiery Manufacturers Association 
meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria where we had an interview with Mr. Consadine, 
the national director. * * * 

"Oriental stores, stores selling only Japanese goods, wholesale houses, etc., 
were visited in order to get information and advise the trade what we were doing 
on the boycott. Letters came into the office from colleges, from students ,and from 
professors, from organizations in different parts of the country asking informa- 
tion about the boycott. We distributed thousands of buttons, visiting, meeting 
with them, and with leaflets. On November 10th two young women and myself 
boarded the S. S. Nonnandic with 2,000 cards which we distributed to oncoming 
possengers and handed in to staterooms. These announced that two fellow 
travelers — Baron Okura and Admiral Godo were Japanese envoys who were here 
on a so-called good will mission, and urged they be boycotted These cards were 
received with splendid response. A picket line was on the outside of the pier 
during this time. * * * 

"Then began plans for the Women's Anti-Silk Parade which was held on 
December 11th when more than 2,000 women paraded in the name of peace. 
Among the women's organizations participating were : Theatre Arts Committee, 
League of Women Shoppers, Women's Division American League for Peace and 
Democracy, Women's Division, Medical Bureau for Spain, Free Synagogue Wom- 
en, Progressive Women's Council. University Settlement Mothers Clubs, I. W. O. 
Women, Harlem Peace League, Workers Alliance, Union of OflSce and Profes- 
sional Workers, Retail Store Employees, Federal Writers Project, W. P. A. 
Teachers Local, Teachers Union, Women's Advertising Guild, Social Workers, 
American Artists Union, International Labor Defense, Students, Chinese women 
and Spanish women, etc. Other prominent women who endorsed the parade 
were: Miss Hester Sondergaard, actress; Miss Frances Farmer, actress; Miss 
Claire Luce, actress ; Miss Phoebe Brant, actress ; Miss Edith Barret, actress ; 
Mrs. Isobel Walker Soule, writer and editor; Mrs. Anna Rochester, writer; Miss 
Genevieve Taggart, poetess ; Miss Grace Lumpkin, writer ; Miss Muriel Rukeyser, 
poetess ; Miss Eda Lou Walton, poetess. * * * 

"On December ISth our committee was well represented at the Boycott Con- 
ference held at 99 Park Ave. I was placed on the resolutions committee. On 
January 19th we visited the directors office of the National Lamp Shade Manu- 
facturers Association during the showing of the products to the trade. He told 
us how much the lamp shade business had changed, how no silk shades were 
made to sell for mox'e than $1.5.00 where previously many had sold as high as 
$50.00. The following day they snapped two of our committee outside the Hotel 
New Yorker holding up signs urging buyers not to buy silk shades. We hope 
this photograph will be in the trade journal. * * * 

"In concluding, I may make a few observations as to the future program of 
the boycott committee. So far we have not here in American been able to gain 
niuclr support from church or religious groups. The Free Synagogue stands for 
the boycott. On February Gth at the Community Church Forum, the program 
is on the boycott with Dr. Sidney Goldstein and myself speaking in support of 
the boycott and- the Women's Peace Union opposing the boycott. 

Our Committee is now interested in getting out a film on the boycott. One 
last fact that strikes me as so humorous is that now manufacturers and whole- 
salers and employers generally are weeping over the hardship to the hosiery 
workers. Surely we all regret if any hardship must be endured by them, but some 
of these people I mentioned have not wept a single tear for the ten million now 
unemployed or the 20 million who were idle a few years ago. Surely we are sorry 



4276 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

for any workers who may be temporarily out of jobs— American or Japanese, 
but our object is to save lives by smashing Japan's war machine and the boycott 
must go on, and it will. , ^. .„ 

"A mass meeting is to be held in Brownsville, Brooklyn. A women s antisilk 
parade in Brooklyn is scheduled for Lincoln's Birthday. Another women's anti- 
silk parade should be held in Manhattan in the spring. Demonstrations on the 
waterfront, plans have been discussed as to a delegation to visit Mr. John D. 
Rockefeller, Jr., asking him, in the name of humanity, to refuse more oil to 
Japan. We have made contact with the Federation of Women's Clubs and this 
is an important objective. There is work to be done in the trade unions. 

"These are some of the activities that will be carried out and more will develop 
as events will determine and new ways to spread the boycott will be thought 
of. We ask all of you w^ho are interested in this part of our work to join our 
Boycott Committee." 

Jean Stanley (Finance) : "You will all agree that money is one of the most 
important organizational matters. In the past half year, with war in the Far 
East, our organization has grown threefold and our great job is teaching the 
American people how they can help the Chinese people. Similarly our expenses 
have increased during this period, while our income, too, has been greater. In 
the next six months we miist not only continue to carry out our work as we have 
been doing, but that we must also increase both our work and our scope. With 
this in mind, it is necessary to look into a budget for the next three months of our 
activity. 

"The great items in a budget for our organization are: Publication of our 
organ in, China Today and wages for our people who devote their full time to 
the organization and the magazine. There are four people on our payroll. 
Their salaries, based on a minimum living wage amounts to only $294.00 a month. 
We are considerably understaffed. China Today, which will in the future come 
out in a color cannot be published for less than $275.00 a month. The circulation 
of our magazine has increased 250%. With these great leaps ahead, we have 
not yet been able to afford to add a circulation manager. 

"Our income is derived from subscriptions to China Today, cash sales of the 
magazine and newstand distribution both nationally and locally, and lecture 
fees from our speaking engagements. Here we must give due recognition and 
express our gratitude to Marcella Loring for donating and devoting her full 
time to the lecture bureau of our organization. 

"In the budget for the next three months there will be a monthly deficit of 
$250.00 per month. This money will have to be realized from special affairs 
run for China Today and the American Friends of the Chinese People as well 
as finding new friends to contribute regular monthly sums of however large or 
however small amounts each month. I hereby earnestly appeal to our member- 
ship and friends. If you know of anyone who can give even a small sum, as 
small as $1.00 a month, towards furthering the work of our organization, inform 
him of our needs". 

Jack Chen (visitor from China) : "If we stop Japan today the Rome-Berlin- 
Tokio axis is weakened, the fascists discouraged. America will not be alone 
in its efforts to stop Japan. $25,000 has already been sent from Soviet Russia 
to China for medical aid and civilian relief. In England a China Campaign 
Committee has been formed with three main aims : medical aid to China, the 
education of the English people on the Chinese question, and the furtherance 
of the boycott movement against Japan. Many churches, including the Unitarian 
Church are supporting this committee. Mass meetings of thousands of ijeople 
have been arranged. At the Queens Hall meeting the Dean of Canterbury and 
various Members of Parliament were present as speakers. 

"Demonstrations have been held at Trafalgar Square. Dockers of Southampton 
have refused to unload and ship Japanese goods. The dockers of Liverpool have 
pledged not to unload Japanese goods. Trade unions have gone on record for the 
boycott and imposition of sanctions. On February 14th an International .Con- 
ference for the Boycott of Japanese Goods is being held in England. Delegates 
for all leading countries will attend. China must win, because China's struggle 
is tlie struggle for peace and for the welfare of the people of the world- ^nd 
this cannot lose." 

The floor was taken by an anonymous gentleman who introduced himself by 
saying that he had spent tweuty-flve years in Japan. He commended our work on 
the boycott. He warned us that the merchant dealing in Japanese goods must not 
be antagonized. We must approach them in a very nice way so that we will win 
them over as allies, instead of forcing them to become enemies. He also men- 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4277 

tioned the fact that many Japanese students are not in accord with their gov- 
ernment's policy. They are very carefully watched and are called to account 
by the Japanese Consul. We should seek these students out and encourage them 
to take a determined stand. 

Bertram Loeb (Youth Director) : "Youth in China have taken leadership in the 
anti-Japanese fight. Youth here are also in the leadership in the movement for 
peace. The American Youth Congress passed a motion at its last Congress of 
solidarity with the Chinese youth. The American Student Union passed a Boy- 
cott resolution. The Youth section of the American Friends held a banqiiet com- 
memorating the Peiping students demonstration. A China project was arranged 
for a group of office workers. Future work : Model Youth Legislature to have 
a resolution on the boycott. World Youth Congress being held in Washington 
this summer and should be attended by our representatives." 

Mrs. Lsadora W. Kerr : "I represent the University Settlement, the oldest set- 
tlement house in the city. We are affiliated to the American Friends of the 
Chinese Peoi^le and some of us have individual membership in it. All of our 
people wear lisle hose. We have looked into the question of buying from Japan. 
We know that Macy's is sending their buyer to Denmark instead of Japan this 
year." 

Miko Kubota : "I would like to send greetings of Japanese people to the Ameri- 
can Friends. Esther Carroll pointed out that the Japanese people in New York 
have done something to help this organization. This is true and it is also ti'ue 
that this organization has done more for the Japanese people in New York as well 
as throughout this country. I appreciate this help. We Japanese will take care 
of the military-fascists of our country but we need your help. At present the 
greatest help which you can give us is your activities for aid to the Chinese 
people. Direct help to the Chinese people directly affects the Japanese people." 

J. H. Lin : "On behalf of the Chinese people I express my sincere appreciation 
of the work you are doing. You have done your work very well considering the 
means at your disposal. You do your work with great devotion and your work 
not only affects the Chinese people in the United States but affects policy in China 
itself. I see that your activities are reported in the Chinese press. I hope that 
now we Chinese in the organization will be able to do more work than we have 
been doing. I think there are many tasks which confront us besides the dis- 
semination of information on China, for there are some well-meaning pacifists 
who say 'what is the use of boycotting Japanese goods.' I>ut the war is just 
beginning. The Chinese people will fight very well and will win this war. We 
must further developments on the boycott. We must render medical and moral 
aid to China. After all, the Chinese people are fighting a life and death struggle — 
but not for China alone. They are fighting for the peace and democracy of the 
entire world." 

James Anderson : "I wish to speak briefly on our waterfront activities. We 
have organized meetings and demonstrations in front of the NYK and OYK 
lines in Brooklyn in the Red Hook district. I think in the near future we shall 
have to do what Jack Chen mentioned in his speech as regards the dockers of 
Southampton and Liverpool. On January 29th we intend to have another demon- 
stration. We nuist begin on a real active period. 

Other friends took the floor to criticize and further elaborate the reports given 
by the various officers. 

Mr. J. H. Lin. on behalf of the Nominating Committee, proposes the following 
people as our national officers : Maxwell Stewart — National Chairman ; Julius 
Loeb — National Vice Chairman ; Helen Mallery — National Treasurer ; Esther 
Carroll — Organizational Secretary ; Manvil Rodgers — Recording Secretary. Mo- 
tion made to accept these people as read. Seconded. Passed unanimously. 

Mr. Julius Loel) in behalf of the Nominating Committee propo.ses enlarging 
Executive Council to 25 seats, leaving ~i seats open for possiI)le additions. Pro- 
poses the following for the Executive Council : James Anderson, Esther Carroll, 
Helen Holman, INIrs. Julia Church Kolar, Mrs. Robert Kalvar, Mr. Conrad Komo- 
rowski, Mr. Kuliota, ilr. J. H. Lin, Julius Loeb, Helen Mallery, Percy Quick, 
Manvil Rodgers, Ruth Rubin, Eugene Schrachner, IMaxwell Stewart, Heng-chi 
Tao. Mr. Rothman moves to accept. ^Motion seconded and passed. 

Mr. Julius Loeb announces that the National Advisory Board is in process of 
formation. The names being considered include : Miss Margaret Forsythe, Prof. 
Lovett, Mrs. J. C. Guggenheimer, Prof. J. Nash, Prof. McCall, and others. 

Mr. Stewart in Summation : The American Friends of the Chinese People works 
under difficult conditions, but produces good results. New tasks lie ahead. While 
many of the things which need to be done by our organization are not, we must 



4278 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

realize that no one organization can meet the needs of China. He emphasized 
that because we are tlie only organization in America today that is I'eally 
initiating vigorous work for China, we have a stupendous task aliead of us. "We 
have failed in the past because we haven't gone far enough. Our job calls for 
the varioiis activities which have been mentioned today. Primarily we have 
to do what Jack Chen indicated is being done in Great Britain today. Firstly 
in aiding the people of China. Secondly raising money for relief. There are 
also a few other agencies which have attempted to do this. Thirdly, develop 
active resistance to the boycott. I really believe that the boycott alone can bring 
Japan to her knees. We should work among American workers and work for a 
government embargo. The primary challenge is to be a national oi-ganization — 
to spread out in the country. Branch out in church groups, settlements, youth 
groups, peace groups, etc. We must carry on the complete program which has 
been outlined by the speakers today. The first thing is to challenge — the next 
thing to do is to. take it. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did the IPK in 1938 ask you to write a book on 
American policy in the Far East? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you write it? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. 

Mr. SouinviNE. Were you paid for it? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How much were you paid ? 

Mr. BissoN. My memory is it was $250. It was not very much. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What was the name of the book ? 

INfr. BissoN. The book was United States Policy in the Far East, 
or Toward the Far East, something of that kind. I am in doubt, be- 
cause the title changed in the revised edition. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you have a grant of any sort while you were 
writing that book? 

Mr. BissoN. Well, the writing of that book coincided or overlapped, 
I think, with the time of the grant that covered my research trip to 
the Far East. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You say the title changed. Wliat did it change to? 

Mr. BissoN. America's Far Eastern Policy. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Under that name by whom was it published ? 

Mr. BissoN. The Institute of Pacific Relations and MacMillan. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do vou remember meeting Mr. Karl Wittfogel, 
Chao ting Chi, and Mr." Jafl'e in late 1931? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Can you say whether such a meeting took place? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not know. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know there was testimony with regard to 
such a meeting in these hearings ? 

Mr. BissoN. I did. I saw that. I could not recall that meeting. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. As a matter of fact, you have gone over all of the 
testimony in the published volumes of these hearings that concerns 
you, have you not ? 

Mr. Bissox. I have gone over the testimony that concerns me. I 
am not sure that I know it all. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. But you have had it pointed out to you ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. What I am saying is I am not sure I would 
remember everything that I have read about that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you write an article in 1913 for Pacific Affairs 
in which you discussed the democratic character of the Chinese Com- 
munist Party and referred to Chiang Kai-shek's party as feudal ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4279 

Mr. BissoN. You have your magazine wrong. You mean Far East- 
ern Survey. 

Mr, SoURWiNE. I v\'ill accept your correction. 

Mr. BissoN. Is it July 1943? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwixE. You publislied it in the Far Eastern Survey? 

Mr. Bissox. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Was that printed in the Far Eastern Survey of 
July 14, 1043? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. But while you were preparing that article you were 
employed by the Board of Economic Warfare ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwixE. You were employed by the Board of Economic 
Warfare until July 10, 1943 ? 

• Mr. Bissoisr. No. May I say my salary continued to that date. I 
think ni}' last official duties, actually performed duties with the Board, 
were at the end of May. I tliink I had a vacation of about a month 
or so before I joined the IPK. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Are you telling us you pj-epared this article during 
the month of June 1943, after you had left BEW? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You did so in its entirety ? 

Mr. Bissoisr. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. By what time did you have to have it in order to 
have it published in the July 14 issue of Far Eastern Survey? 

Mr. BissoN. I would not remember exactly. I think about a week 
or maybe 10 daj's. 

Mr. SuuRwixE. Then you did this whole article in a month or less? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

]\Ir. SouRwiNE. Do you remember the manuscript of Lawrence 
Rosinger's book, Wartime Politics in China ? 

Mr. BissoN. The manuscript of it ? 

Mr. SouRWix^^E. Yes. Do you remember anything about the manu- 
script of that book? 

Mr. Bissox. Not particularly. 

Mr. SouRWixE. Was that manuscript sent to Mr. John Carter 
Vincent ? 

Mr. Bissox^. I do not know. 

Mr. SouRwixE. Did vou ask him to send it back? 

Mr. Bissox-^. I do not recall. 

Mr. SouRwiXE. Are you familiar with the excerpt in that regard 
which is in the record of this committee? 

Mr. Bissox. Apparently not ; no. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Are you aware that on page 487 of this committee's 
record, exhibit No. 127, there is a letter dated November 12, 1943, 
from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations addressed to Mr. 
John Carter Vincent purporting to have been signed by you, saying : 

Dear Mr. Vixcent : Knowing- that you must be exceedingly busy at this time, 
I am sorry to bother you with a minor detail. We believe that the original 
copy of Mr. Lawrence Rosinger's manuscript on Wartime Politics in China was 
sent to you for criticism, but with your new responsibilities there is no reason 
to burden you with this task of reading and review. However, we are anxious 



4280 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

to have the mauuscript copy itself returned here for the printer if it is con- 
veniently possible to have it sent back. Hoping to see you in New York soon. 
Sincerely yours, 

T. A. BissoN. 

Did you write that letter ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you now renieniber any of tlie circumstances? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. It seems to me that, as I recall now, that manu- 
script had been sent to him sometime earlier and we had not heard 
from him, and we wanted the manuscript back. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Where was it sent to him ? 

Mr. BissoN. Presumably they wanted his comments and criticisms 
for any changes that might be made. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you send other manuscripts to Mr. Vincent? 

Mr. BissoN. Did I ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. I may have. I would not know whether I did actually. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know whose idea it was to send manuscripts 
to Mr. Vincent ? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Was it standard procedure? Was he one of those 
to whom manuscripts were sent ? 

Mr. BissoN. I should think so. It was standard procedure with the 
Foreign Policy Association in the earlier years. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. This was the IPR, not the Foreign Policy Associa- 
tion. 

Mr. BissoN. It bears on this point, and I think I should state it. 
When I wrote a manuscript for the Foreign Policy Association re- 
ports, it was very often sent to Stanley K. Hornbeck. It would come 
back from him. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Who would send it to him ? 

Mr. BissoN. Either I would or the secretary of the Foreign Policy 
Association, asking him for his comments. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you remember participating in a draft of a 
statement which it was ho})ed or intended would be signed by Mr. 
Thomas Lamont and sent to the New York Times ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you consult with Mr. Lattimore about that 
matter; Owen Lattimore? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember any consultation with him. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did Mr. Carter write to you about that matter? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes; I think there was a memorandum he wrote to 
me about it. 

Mr. SouR\viNE. Can you remember anything about your participa- 
tion in that? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you remember making a statement to the Daily 
Worker giving an interview urging President Truman to avert the 
danger of civil war in China by letting the Japanese surrender to the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. BissoN. Is this a general letter with many signatures. I am not 
clear which you refer to. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. This is a statement specifically quoting you. 
It contains 20 other signatures. The statement was in a telegram 
signed by 20 other persons. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4281 

Mr. BissoN. You are asking whether I signed that statement? 
Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes, sir. 

No, I am asking first whether you gave any interview to the Daily 
Worker. I will ask you about the statement in regard to the President 

in a moment. 

Mr. BissoN. I do not recall any interview I gave to the Daily 

Worker. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you sign the telegram to the President? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes ; I think I did. 

Senator Eastland. Were you ever interviewed by the Daily 
Worker ? 

Mr. BissoN, Not that I know of. 

Senator Eastland. Did you ever write an article for the Daily 
Worker ? 

Mr. BissoN. No, sir. 

Senator Eastland. New Masses ? 

Mr. BissoN. No, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you see Andrew Grajdanzev's report on For- 
mosa in 1942? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Was that in connection with your official duties? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes. It was because I was head of a Manchuria- 
Korea-Formosa unit in the Board of Economic Warfare. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Did you do anything to circulate that report ? 

Mr. BissoN. Yes, probably. It was probably circulated among the 
members of the Board. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you do anything to circulate it other than 
among the members of the Board ? 

Mr. BissoN. Outside the Board of Economic Warfare? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. I may have. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. What might you have clone to circulate it outside 
the Board of Economic Warfare ? 

Mr. BissoN. I do not recall specific individuals I may have sent it 
to, but it is possible that there were other outside individuals that I 
wanted to have read this. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. As a matter of fact, you did send it to outside in- 
dividuals, did you not ? 

Mr. BissoN. I probably did. I do not recall any specific individuals. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you write an article for Spotlight on the Far 
East in February 1948 ? 

Mr. BissoN. I probably did. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I want to show you page 1018 of our hearings and 
ask you if the article there is one which you wrote ? It has been iden- 
tified as an article which you did write. Is that something you wrote? 

Mr. BissoN. No ; I do not think I wrote this at all. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You deny having written that? 

Mr. BissoN. This is a summary of what occurred at the conference 
mentioned in here. 

Mr. SoTjRwiNE. I don't think you are looking at the same thing. 

Mr. BissoN. I am looking at the wrong one. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The one right at .the top of the page. 

Mr. BissoN. This is again a similar situation, someone writing in 
Spotlight reporting what I said at this conference. 



4282 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I did not say you wrote it. I am asking you if you 
did write it? 

Mr. BissoN. No. 

INIr. SouRWiNE. Did you give an interview to Spotlight on the Far 
East about that matter ? 

Mr. BissoN, About the conference? 

Mr, SouRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. BissoN. I do not remember. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you give them any memoranda about it? 

Mr. BissoN. I may have given them a memorandum. I made some 
remarks at the conference, and they may have wanted to know what 
those remarl^s were. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That publication is published by the Committee for 
a Democratic Far Eastern Policy? 

Mr. BissoN. That is right. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. That is all. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you receive into the record this 
page 276 and up to page 284? It begins a new subject. It is from 
Amerasia of 1943. 

Senator Eastland. It will be filed as an exhibit. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 739'' and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 739 

[Source: Amerasia, September 1943, pp. 276-278] 
The Two Chinas 

This all-important question of the present trend in Chinese policy was dis- 
cussed at some length by T. A. Bisson in an article on "China's Part in a Coali- 
tion War" publlslied in the Far Eastern Survey of July 14. Mr. Bisson is 
extremely critical of the shortcomings of America and Britain in their dealings 
with China, but he also believes that the present political situation in China 
is cause for well-justified apprehension, since it affects "not only the current 
prosecution of the war, but also the prospects for the postwar emergence of a 
stable, united, and democratic China." Together with many other students of 
Chinese affairs, Mr. Bisson considers that "the early promise held out by the 
war for the broadening and deepening of Chinese unity through the achieve- 
ment of liberal political and economic reforms has not been fulfilled." Instead, 
the conservative elements in the Kuoraintang, alarmed l)y the growing influence 
of the Communist-led armies in the guerrilla areas of North China, and by the 
agrarian reforms and democratic electoral procedures introduced in these areas, 
have imposed a military blockade against them. Thus two Chinas have emerged, 
"each with its own government, irulitary forces, and territories, and each with 
its own characteristic set of political and economic institutions." 

These two areas are coumionly referred to as Kuomintang China and Com- 
munist China, but Mr. Bisson maintains that the terms "feudal China" and 
"democratic China" more accurately describe the ba.sic distinction between 
the two regions. His use of the term "feudal," Mr. Bisson explains, is intended 
to define a society "in which the landlord-peasant relationship is dominant and 
autocracy in government centers around this relationship." Its application to 
Kuomintang China is justified, in his opinion, by the fact that no serious effort 
has been made to uproot the landlord-usurer system, and that the great land- 
lords have become the economic mainstay of the Kuomintang regime, while 
political power is exercised solely by the Kuomintang bureaucracy, with no 
provision for popular representation or control. 

In so-called "Conununist China," on the other hand, economic and political 
reforms have combined to free the peasant from "the crushing burden of rent, 
taxes, and usurious interest charges levied by a feudal economy," and to in- 
troduce a system of local democratic government in which all classes of the 
population, including the landlords and merchants as well as the peasants and 
workers, participate. "The task of statesmanship," declares Mr. Bisson, "is 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONiS 4283 

to merge these two Cliiuas into one. To be sound, sucli unification must come 
on the high plane of social advance and democratic reform. Until unification 
is achieved on this plane, China's full strength cannot be placed behind the 

war effort." 

Mr. Bisson's use of the term "feudal" to describe conditions in Kuomintang 
China was sharply criticized by Dr. C. L. Hsia, Director of the Chinese News 
Service in New York, as well as by Chinese officials in Chungking. In a letter to 
the editors, published in the Far Eastern Survey of August 11, Dr. Hsia contends 
that Chinese landlords do not exercise any control over the Chinese government, 
and that the present land tax system and land reform policy pursued by Chung- 
king have served to restrict the influence of the landlords and place greater finan- 
cial burdens on them. Furthermore, Dr. Hsia argues that if one accepts Mr. 
Bisson's definition of feudalism, "we may say that practically all countries in the 
world, with the exception of the U. S. S. R., are feudal. Outside the U. S. S. R., 
we find peasants and landlords everywhere, whether the landlords are owners of 
large farms, great estates, oil wells, or iron and coal mines." 

Dr. Hsia also criticizes Mr. Bisson for failing to state the specific means by 
which Chinese unity is to be attained, and contends that it is utterly impossible 
for the Chinese Government to introduce far-reaching political and agrarian re- 
forms in the midst of war, disregarding, apparently, Mr. Bisson's contention that 
such reforms are being carried out today in the guerrilla regions. Dr. Hsia 
appears to be chiefly incensed, however, by the assertion that the mobilization 
of China's resources is being hampered by the feudal character of her political 
and economic structure. But if Chinese feudalism "passed away some twenty-one 
centuries ago," as Dr. Hsia maintains, how does he explain the statement made by 
Chiang Kai-shek on December 10, 1928, that the two basic objectives of the Chinese 
Revolution are international equality and the overthrow of feudalism? ^ It is also 
difficult to reconcile his claim that the power of the landlords is decreasing with 
the statement by Sun Fo, President of the Legislative Yuan, that "The landlords" 
share of the taxes is still too small, while the small owners are shouldering an 
increased burden. During recent years, the landlord class has been greatly 
enriched. * * * The big landlords are employing their surplus funds to 
increase their holdings. * * * Land ownership is more and more concen- 
trated in the hands of the landlords." ( Ta Kung Pao, October 16, 1942. ) 

The persistence of feudal or semifeudal elements in a country's political and 
economic structure is certainly not peculiar to China. In essence, similar condi- 
tions exist in the southern states in this country, as well as in many parts of 
Europe. It is significant, for example, that the new Italian Action Party, headed 
by Count Sforza, has for one of the planks in its liberal, democratic platform: 
"wide agrarian reform looking toward the elimination of feudalism." The point 
to be stressed here is that the liberal and progressive forces that exist in Kuomin- 
tang China are being seriously hampered in their efforts to secure an extension 
of democracy in both the political and economic spheres as an essential factor 
in strengthening China's war effort. In their view, a program of land reform 
which would limit both the political and economic power of the great landlords 
is not only possible but essential in time of war in order to give the Chinese people 
a greater incentive to carry on the struggle. Furthermore, they maintain that 
greater political democracy is essential to secure the close cooperation of all anti- 
Japanese groups in China in tlie war against the invader. In this connection it is 
worth noting that not only the Chinese Communists but also many of the smaller 
political parties in China, some of them even more conservative than the Kuomin- 
tang, have demanded that they be granted legal status as minority parties and 
given the opportunity to be represented in the government by popularly elected 
delegates.^ 

At the moment, however, there appears to be little prospect of any change in the 
attitude of the Kuomintang leaders toward other political parties in China. On 
the contrary, recent reports have stressed the rising political tension in Free 
China, resulting from the Chungking Government's efforts to suppress the activi- 
ties of all non-Kuomintang organizations. As applied to the Chinese Communist 
Party and the armed forces under its control, this policy has been expressed in 
the continued blockade of the guerrilla areas in the north by Central Government 



1 The speech containing this statement appeared in a book entitled "Collected Speeches 
of the Generalissimo" (In Chinese), published by the Cheng Chung Book Shop, Chungking, 
xyoo, p, 5. 

" For a detailed account of the organization of the "smaller parties" in China into the 
Fedevation for Political Democracy, see Amerasia, Spring Quarterly, April 25, 1943, 
pp. 97-120. > y B ^ 



4284 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

troops. No large-scale armed clashes have occurred between the Kuomintang 
and Communist forces since the "New Fourth Army Incident" of January 1941, 
but reports have reached this country in recent weeks that certain elements in 
the Kuomintang favor immediate steps to force the dissolution of the Border 
Kegiou Government and of the armies under Communist leadership. 



[Source: Amerasia, September 1943, pp. 278-281] 
Threat of Civil War in China : A Soviet Observer's View 

The most outspoken of these reports was contained in a United Press dispatch 
from Moscow on August 6, quoting excerpts from an article on China published in 
the official Soviet trade union journal, War and the Working Class. Its author, 
Vladimir Rogov, recently returned to the Soviet Union after serving for twelve 
years in China as a representative of the Tass agency, and the prominence 
given his report would seem to indicate that the SoTiet Government is seriously 
disturbed by the current Chinese situation. For purposes of I'ecord, the full 
text of Mr. Rogov's article is published herewith : ' 

"During six years of war, the Chinese command, at the cost of considerable 
territorial losses, succeeded in saving its troops from defeat. Despite heavy 
odds, the Chinese army preserved its capacity for resistance. The Japanese 
militarists failed in their plan for a rapid conquest of China, and proved in- 
capable of breaking the resistance of the Chinese people. The war in China 
became prolonged, threatening Japan with ever-increasing complications. 

"In defensive battles on an extremely long front, the Chinese army gained the 
necessary time for reorganizing its troops and strengthening their fighting ca- 
pacity. Soon after the fall of Wuhan (Hankow) in October 1938, Chiang Kai- 
shek outlined a program for the reorganization of the country's armed forces, 
the principal points of which were as follows : First, China's national policy must 
become the policy of a long, defensive war. Second, the guerrilla movement 
must be developed. Third, in order to conduct a general counter-offensive, a 
new army must be cresited, many millions strong and trained in the use of the 
most up-to-date war equipment. 

"However, the plans of Chiang Kai-shek met with covert resistance from 
the outset. The reforms in the army with the aim of training new units, reor- 
ganizing control and strengthening discipline were not completed, and the task 
of creating an economic base for war was not accomplished. The main reason 
for this was the divisive work of the 'appeasers,' the defeatists, and capitulators. 

"The war economy resources of National China (Free China) are large and 
afford an adeqwate base for the rearmament and supply of the army. On its 
territory National China has all the strategic raw materials necessary for the 
conduct of a prolonged war. Nevertheless, large-scale construction has not 
been undertaken because industrial and financial circles prefer to engage in 
profiteering rather than invest their capital in the armaments industry. 

"This situation has led to the weakening of the army's fighting capacity and 
to greater dependence on the supply of arms from the United States and Great 
Britain who, owing to their own war, find it extremely diflBcult to supply China. 
Elements favoring capitulation have sabotaged the measures for the mobilization 
of China's Internal r(\sources intended to establish the national economy on a 
war ba.sis, as well as the measures for waging economic warfare against the 
Japanese invaders. 

"China has no lack of human reserves, hut the Chinese army receives no 
regular reinforcements. There are insnfiicient trained reserves. There is no 
organized military registration of the population, and law providing for universal 
military service is not fully enforced. The army also receives a large percentage 
of men unfit for service. 

"The main defect of the Chinese army is the shortage of trained commanders. 
All foreign military observers who have visited the Chinese army agree that the 
Chinese soldier is tenacious and enduring in the field and is undemanding as far 
as food and uiuforms are concerned ; whereas the commanding personnel is 
extremely weak and backward in military and technical training. The army's 
equipment is still at a low level, and the organization and control of the troops 



1 Since Mr. Rogov's original article In Russian has not yet arrived in this country, this 
text is l)a.sed on the English translations cabled from Moscow by the United Press and 
Inter-Contlnent News. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4285 

is far from perfect. One of the defects of the Chinese army is the lack of an 
effective united command and of coordinated operations on tlie separate fronts. 
The internal friction and suspicion among the generals cannot help but affect 
the fighting capacity and discipline of their troops. 

"In Chungking, of course, there are no open advocates of surrender, but this 
does not mean that there is a lack of capitnlators and defeatists there, some of 
whom occupy important positions in the Kuomintang. These defeatists ele- 
ments have evolved a theory of an 'honorable' peace with Japan, and are weaken- 
ing China by their political intrigues. There is no doubt that these elements 
represent a serious menace. 

"Since December 1941, the Japanese have concentrated their attention on the 
war in the Pacific, while the war in China has receded into the background. This 
lias led to the appearance among Chinese political and military leaders of a 
certain complacency, and the Japanese are taking advantage of this attitude to 
intensify their 'peace oft'ensives.' They are now making every effort to deepen 
and sharpen internal conflicts in China to weaken Chinese resistance and 
strengthen their own position. In this attempt they are aided by the maneuvers 
of the Chinese 'appeasers' who are doing their utmost to undermine the military 
collaboration between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party and to incite 
the persecution of the Eighth Route and New Fourth Armies which, as units of 
China's united national army, have in.scribed many heroic pages in the history 
of the resistance of the Chinese people to the Japanese invaders. 

"These armies consist of the most progressive, steadfast, and self-sacrificing 
people of China. They ai*e led by the Chinese Communist Party which enjoys 
merited prestige among the broad masses of the working people as the organizer 
of their struggle for national freedom and independence. Today, by direct mili- 
tary pressure, new attempts are being made to bring about the dissolution of the 
Chinese Communist Party and the liquidation of the Eighth Route and New 
Fourth Armies. The Chinese high conunand has transferred new divisions to 
the districts where these armies are stationed, with large supplies of munitions 
and food, obviously in preparation for an attack on the Eighth Route and New 
Fourth. If these moves are crowned with any success, anti-democratic and 
anti-popular forces will gain the upper hand in Chungking, and if fratricidal 
war results, it will lead to fatal consequences for the Chinese war of liberation. 
Such an improvoked attack by the Chungking generals against the Eighth Route 
and New Fourth Armies would be tantamount to a knife in the back of the 
Chinese people, and would be of incalculable aid to the Japanese imperialists. 

"A number of outstanding Kuomintang leaders strongly oppose the treacherous 
activities of the appeasers, capitnlators, and provocateurs, and demand closer 
collaboration with all anti-Japanese groups. "The discontent with the Kuomin- 
tang's policies in this respect is widespread throughout China. However, the 
Chinese Government has shown no firmness in eliminating the capitulators who 
are undermining national unity and weakening China's resistance against Jap- 
anese aggression. 

"In the last few years I have had occasion to visit more than fifteen provinces 
of China. Both at the front and deep in the rear, in occupied Shanghai and 
Manchuria, representatives of various groups in China watch with grave concern 
the criminal activity of the traitors, turncoats, defeatists, and saboteurs. Nev- 
ertheless they are unanimous in their confidence that all efforts to provoke civil 
war are doomed to failure because the people of Free China, in hard fighting, 
have accunuilated great strength and will not permit the cause of national lib- 
eration to die. 

"With large strategic raw material resources and tremendous manpower re- 
serves at her disposal, China has every iwssibility for victory over the enemy. 
The necessary conditions for this victory are the realization of radical measures 
for reorganizing the entire economy on a war footing, subordinating all eco- 
nomic life to the needs of the front, and strengthening the armed forces against 
capitulation and defeatism, and, most imiwrtant of all, the genuine unity of all 
national forces in the struggle for freedom and national independence. 

"The extent to which Chiang Kai-shek and the Chungking authorities recog- 
nize the importance of this principal condition and succeed in averting the dan- 
ger of internal struggle, now being fostered by the enemies of the Chinese people, 
will determine whether the exhausting war forced upon China by Japanese 
imperialism will be brought to a successful conclusion in the interests of the 
Chinese people as a whole." 

88348— 52— pt. 12 IT 



4286 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Many Americans presumably discounted Mr. Rogov's comments on the grounds 
that he is naturally prejudiced in favor of the Communist-led armies of China 
and therefore inclined to take an exaggeratedly hostile and alarmist view of 
Kuomintang policies. But though one may question his contention that as of 
today China possesses all the strategic raw materials necessary for the con- 
duct of the war, and his implication that today she has the potential strength to 
defeat Japan single-handed, his warning regarding the dangers of renewed 
civil strife in China cannot be dismissed as merely pro-Communist propa- 
ganda. 

As we noted earlier in this article, many competent American students of China 
have expressed concern in recent months over the suppression of liberal forces 
in China and the growing influence of reactionary elements within the Kuo- 
mintang. These include writers who have staunchly supported the Chinese Gov- 
ernment for many years, and who can in no way be regarded as Communist sym- 
pathizers. Their view is simply that the preservation of Chinese unity and the 
strengthening of the liberal, democratic forces in China are essential not only for 
the success of the United Nations war effort in Asia, but also for the emergence 
of a strong and stable China in the post-war world. For this reason, they are 
sincerely concerned over the fact that the trend toward greater political unity 
arid democracy in China, which appeared so promising in the early years of the 
Sino-.Tapanese war, has now been reversed in favor of a strengthened dicta- 
torship by the Kuomintang and the suppression of groups seeking political and 
economic reforms. 

An excellent analysis of the basic cause of the political crisis in China was 
provided by Mr. Raymond Gram Swing on August 11. Mr. Swing has earned a 
well-merited reputation both in this country and abroad as an informative and 
reliable news analyst, and it may be assumed that his appraisals of the Chinese 
situation was based on the authoritativeness by millions of listeners throughout 
the world, but in view of their importance, it seemed desirabb that they should 
be made available to Amerasia readers in printed form. We are therefore in- 
cluding in this record, with Mr. Swing's permission and approval, that portion of 
his broadcast which dealt with China. 



[Source : Amerasia, September 1943, pp. 281-284] 
An Appraisal of Conditions in China by Raymond Gram Swing 

An item crept into the news yesterday about China which calls for careful 
appraisal. It came first from London. Chineses circles there autRoritatively 
denied that the Chinese Government is taking military action against the so-called 
Chinese Communists. And the same denial later reached this country from 
Chungking direct, in a wireless to the New York Times. The denials were evoked 
by an article appearing in a trade-union newspaper in Moscow, by a writer named 
A^ladimir Kogov, who has spent tbe last twelve years in China, and stated the 
appeasement and defeatist sections of the Chinese Government have been under- 
mining the war effort by seeking to provoke internal trouble and urging dissolu- 
tion of the Communist units of the Chinese forces. He said that the Chineses 
Government is facing serious internal difficulties that could result in civil war 
or Japanese victory. The Chinese authorities quoted in the New York Times 
categorically denied these assertions and the Times correspondent adds an obser- 
vation : "In view of month-old rumors of trouble with the Communists breaking 
out again, this news is considered of the highest importance." 

These rumors have reached this country, too, and caused great concern, for a 
forcible attempt to liquidate the Eighth Route or Communist army, repeating 
the attack on the Fourth Army, would do a most unwelcome injury to the United 
Nations war against Japan. They were accompanied by reports that the Chinese 
Government has yielded quite visibly to reactionary influences, and that the pros- 
pects of early democratization, in our sense of the word, were fading away. Thus 
the Chinese cooperatives, while not suppressed, were finding it hai'd to maintain 
themselves. Accepting the news as true that no forceful measures are planned 
against the Communists, the situation in China still remains critical and dis- 
quieting. And it is a situation not aiDpreciated by the public in this country, 
though it is well enough known by the China experts. The simplest statement 
of the facts is enough to show that the problem is well-nigh unsoluble. The 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4287 

Communists hold sections of Sbensi, Shansi, and Kansu Provinces, a fairly smaU 
territory, with a population of approximately five or six million. Here they have 
instituted their agrarian and social reforms. For these are not Marxian Prole- 
tarians, these so-called Communists, they are agrarian radicals, trying to estab- 
li-sh democratic practices and particularly to break up the great estates, so that 
the farm worker can have individual status and now own property. A word is 
in order about these agrarian radicals. They should not be called Communists, 
whatever their origin may be. They have developed in another direction. At 
the same time that the Kuomintang "has gone to the right, the Communists have 
become versed in the democratic art of compromise. They have had to deal 
with the landlord, too, to convince him they are not simply going to expropriate 
his land. T. A. Bisson, writing for the American Council of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations, objects to the labels, Kuomintang China and Communist China. 
"These are only party labels," he says. "To be more descriptive the one might be 
called feudal China, the other, democratic China." The Communists have their 
own army, and though it is only a small percentage of the total of Chinese forces, 
it has produced more than two-fifths of the casualties inflicted on the Japanese 
in 1941 and 1942. The Communists were the ones who first insisted on resistance 
to Japan. They precipitated the union of action against the Japanese. But they 
settled down in tlie territory they occupied, established their own regime, main- 
tained the independence of their array, which they now refuse to give up. 

Obviously this is a contradiction of unity, and the Central Chinese Govern- 
ment — the Kuomintang Government — feels it cannot permanently tolerate it. 
Chiang Kai-shek, who had waged war against the Communists before the war 
opened against Japan, now has blockaded the Communist territory, and is using 
some half million troops to isolate it from the rest of China. Some of Chiang's 
crack troops are kept there. They have not smelted gunpowder in any clash 
witli the Japanese. They are on guard to hold the Communist movement in 
check. I should add that Communist influence extends much farther than the 
blockaded province. It seeps throughout the North, and the celebrated Chinese 
guerrillas operating against the Japanese in the North function not as agents 
of the Central Government but of the Communists. So the Communist move- 
ment is far more pervading and significant than a regime established in prov- 
inces of five to six millions. 

When the Comintern was abolished, some leaders in the Central Government 
argued that this meant the severance of Russian connection with the Chinese 
Communists, and steps could safely be taken to liquidate them as an independent 
movement. So the troops blockading the Communists were apparently strength- 
ened, though that has been denied, and it is believed that the Communists were 
presented with terms. They had to join Central China and put their army under 
Chiang or disband it. They either had to become a minority party, or accept 
membership in the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang is the single party which 
rules China today and does it with the trappings of a secret police, a youtjh 
movement, and the successful elimination of most civil rights. The Communists 
are believed to have rejected the terms. If they turn their army over to the 
Central Government they lose their identity. If they lose their identity' they 
lose tlieir cause, and abandon hope of introducing their social and agrarian 
reforms in all China. And they do not lielieve that as a minority party they 
would be allowed to exist. From their point of view, they are just as logical 
as the Central Government. And there is little that outsiders have been able 
to suggest as a solution of the problem. If the Communists were to come into 
Central China and serve as a minority and opposition party they would have to 
have a guarantee that they were to be allowed to function. But the only con- 
vincing guarantee that Chiang could give them would be to show some interest in 
their reforms. He might introduce some of them. But that is out of the ques- 
tion, because Chiang Kai-shek derives most of his power from the very landlord 
class which the Communists are seeking to dethrone. His power is from these 
great owners, and from militarists and bureaucrats in sympathy with them. So 
whatever Chiang may feel about the reforms, he would be powerless to institute 
them. 

As to Chiang himself, it used to be thought that he was sympathetic with the 
reforms, and that he looked forward to the introduction of triie democracy after 
the war, which obviously would bring reforms in its train. Democracy is the 
end goal of the Yat-sen policy to which Chiang is committed. - But doubts have 
been raised as to Chiang's own views. He has recently published a book on 



4288 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

foreign and domestic policy ^ which now becomes the official guide and textbook 
for Kuoniintang, a kind of bible of Chinese policy. 

It has not been translated into English, as Chiang decided not to i)ermit it 
to be translated. In spirit it is an antiforeign book. It also is anti-imperialist, 
and it lays down the principle that China itself will not pursue an imperialist 
policy. But it does not much differentiate between American policy and im- 
perialism, and it is not friendly to the tenets of Western liberalism. 

On the subject of Democracy, Chiang writes that there can be other types of 
it than the Western kind, and states that the destiny of China rests with the 
Kuoniintang. In other words, while there can be other factions in theory, China 
will keep the one-party system, continuing its youth movement, and presumably 
its rigid controls. There is no mention in the book of land reforms. So there 
is no basis in tliis doctrine on which to build hopes for what we should consider 
a democratic movement in which the agrarian radicals would have some political 
weight. The news that the Central Government is not going to use force against 
the Communists is, as the Times correspondent pointed out, of the highest im- 
portance. It means tliat China will not be engulfed in a civil war at once. But 
it also is clear that this simply postpones a crisis for which no solution appears 
available. While it is undeniable that this is an internal affair of the Chinese 
it is not one tliat China's allies can ignore, while the war is in progress. Nor 
will this country be able to ignore it after the war is over. The Chinese people 
have all the sympathy of this country, and deserve it all. They will need Ameri- 
can loans and equipment after the war. Their place as a power and their leader- 
ship for stability and development must be assured. So long as the United 
States has Pacific responsibilities what happens in China will affect us, and 
hence interest us. And though it is important news tliat force is not going to 
be used against the Eighth Route Army, one can only wish that the crisis might 
have a consti'uctive solution, not merely a postponement. 

Senator Eastland. You may be excused and the hearing is closed. 
(Whereupon, at 12 : 25 p. m., the hearing was closed, subject to call.) 



1 "China's Destiny," not to be confused with "Resistance and Reconstruction" recently 
published in this country by Harpers. "China's Destiny" is published only in Chinese, and 
is reported to have already sold over a million copies in China. It is virtually impossible 
to obtain a copy in this country. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



TUESDAY, APRIL 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. G. 

The siibcominittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 45 a. m., in room 424, 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Homer Ferguson, presiding. 

Present : Senators Eastland and Ferguson, and Watkins. 

Also present: J. G. Sourwine, committee counsel; Robert Morris, 
subcommittee counsel, and Benjamin Mandel, director of research. 

Senator Ferguson. The committee will come to order. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Morris. Will you give your name and address to the reporter ? 

TESTIMONY OP JULIAN R. FRIEDMAN, BERKELEY, CALIF. 

Mr. Friedman. Julian R. Friedman, 24G6 Hilgard Avenue, Berke- 
ley, Calif. 

Mr. Morris. AVhat is your present occupation, Mr. Friedman^ 

Mr. Friedman. At the present moment I am a lecturer in political 
science in the department of political science. University of California. 

Senator Ferguson. Is that a full time job? 

Mr. Friedman. No ; it is a three-fourths time job at the present time, 
Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. AVhat is your salary ? 

Mr. Friedman. I am receiving for this term — I have just started as 
of January 1952— about $1,700, $1,680. 

Mr. Morris. AVhat is your age, Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. Friedman. I am 31 years old. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that the 
witness has been sworn in executive session. 

Senator Ferguson. You have been sworn. You understand that. 

Mr. Friedman. Yesterday; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Friedman, were you ever an employee of the State 
Department ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I was an employee of the State Department. 

Mr. Morris. AVhat position or positions did you hold at that time? 

Mr. Friedman. In September 1943, I was employed by the State 
Department as a junior professional assistant in what was then the 
Office of the Assistant Adviser on International Economic Affairs. 
Subsequently that office became the Division of Labor Relations, and 
I believe, while I was still there, the Division of International Labor, 
Health, and Social Affairs, 

4289 



4290 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

I remained in the Division until, officially, November 20, 1944, when 
I was appointed Divisional Assistant in the Division of Chinese 
Affairs. 

At the time I left the Division of Labor Relations, I was then the 
assistant to tlie Chief, with the rating of P-2, transferred to tlie Divi- 
sion of Chinese Affairs also with the rating of P-2. I was in the 
Division of Chinese Affairs until my assignment, my appointment, 
to the Foreign Service Auxiliary, which was officially made, I be- 
lieve, on October 6, 1945. 

In the period in which I was a member of the Division of Chinese 
Affairs, I was officially assigned to the United Nations Conference 
at San Francisco from, I believe, April 18, until July 1, 1945, and 
served on the Internatonal Secretariat as the Assistant Secretary of 
Committee 2, Commission 1. 

Mr. Morris. That is, you were assigned by the State Department to 
the International Secretariat for the United Nations Conference? 

Mr. Friedman. I was made available to the Secretariat. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What is the difference between "made available" 
and "assigned" ? You used the term "made available." 

Mr. Friedman. The specific difference, I think, is that the Inter- 
national Secretariat was not an American Secretariat but an inter- 
national one, for which several governments made personnel avail- 
able. 

Mr. Sourwine. Were you required to go there ? Was that a part 
of your duties ? 

Mr. Friedman. When I was assigned and accepted, it was part of 
my duties ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. A part of your duties for the State Department ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. At the assignment to the International 
Secretariat, my duties were entirely for the International Secretariat. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did the State Department pay you during that 
time ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe the State Department did. Yes; I believe 
the arrangement was that each government would pay the personnel 
which it made available to the International Secretariat. I am not 
quite sure on that ]:)oint, but I think I am correct. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is it your judgment that during that period of time 
you owed no allegiance to the State Department which was paying 
you, but you did owe allegiance to the International Secretariat? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I owed allegiance or loyalty for the dura- 
tion of the conference to the International Secretariat, that I would 
perform my duties as an international civil servant for that period. 

Senator Ferguson. Was this before the Charter had been approved 
by the Congress? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. How could you, as an employee of the United 
States Government, the State Dei^artment, accept employment from 
an international organization without a, transfer over to them? 

Mr. Friedman. To the international organization? I am not sure 
of the details under which the arrangement was made. I know I was 
one of several persons from the State Department, which the State 
Department made available to the conference. I am certainly not 
familiar 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4291 

Senator Ferguson. You were not, then, when you were on that con- 
ference out at San Francisco, working for tlie United States Govern- 
ment. You felt that your duty was to a foreign organization, an 
international organization ? 

Mr. Friedman. Excuse nie, sir. Not a foreign organization. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, at least foreign to the United States, ue- 
cause it was international. 

Mr. Friedman. Well, it was international in the sense that the 
United States was also a participant and a principal participant and 
the host at San Francisco. I should make that clear, that the United 
States Government was the host to the conference. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, how many of our employees were assigned 
to international organizations like tliat, out of San Francisco? 

Mr. Friedman. I cannot say specifically the number of persons, sir, 
but my impression was that the international conference probably 
was staffed, oh, with 95 percent Americans made available from the 
State Department and other agencies of the United States Govern- 
ment. 

Senator Ferguson. That was at least your understanding, that you 
were working for the international group. 

Mr. Friedman. For the International Secretariat, to which the 
State Department provided part of the personnel ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. How long after you left college did you go into 
Government ? 

Mr. Fried^ian. Well, I graduated from the Fletcher School of Law 
and Diplomacy at Medf ord, Mass., in, I believe, June 1943, and entered 
the State Department in September 1943. 

Senator Ferguson. Just afterward? 

Mr. Friedman. A few months, yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Friedman, were you assigned by the State De- 
partment to the Hot Springs Convention of the Institute of Pacific 
Relations? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Morris. In other words, you were sent there on official duty for 
the State Department? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, what were your duties at Hot Springs? 

Mr. Friedman. My principal duty was to serve as a reporter of 
committees of the conference, which was an international conference 
of the Institute of Pacific Eelations. That was my principal duty; 
in addition to which I arranged, at the conference, a party, a social 
gathering, on behalf of some members of the American delegation, 
particularly Mr. John Carter Vincent, who was an American delegate 
to the conference ; and subsequently, subsequent to the conference, I 
helped the Protocol Division of the State Department arrange a cock- 
tail party or tea party for the delegates at Blair House. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. May I inquire about that Blair House conference? 
Because we have been interested in that. 

You were the person who helped the Protocol Division arrange it? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that I helped make the arrangements ; yes, 
sir. 

Mr. SoURWiNE. What were your duties in connection with those 
arrangements ? 



4292 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Fkiediman. I don't recall specifically. I think principally to 
inform the Protocol Department that it was desirable to have such 
a reception. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Wait a minute. That is a little different from help- 
ing them arrange it. That is bringing it about, isn't it? 

Senator Eastland. Let him finish his answer. 

Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Senator, 

If I am not mistaken, the party was to be given on behalf of the 
Under Secretary, who was ISIr. Joseph Grew at that time. Mr. Grew 
was the host. 

The Protocol Department consulted the Office of Far Eastern Af- 
fairs, the Division of Chinese Affairs, as to the type of party that was 
wanted — the number of persons who might be expected. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You spoke of your duties in convincing the Protocol 
Department that such a party should be held. 

Mr. Friedman. Not convincing the Protocol Department. It was 
decided in the Department that the Under Secretary should offer a 
party, since so many of the delegates to the conference were distin- 
guished persons from many foreign countries. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. How was that decided? 

Mr. Friedman. That I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Souravine. Who gave you your first instructions with regard 
to it? 

Mr. Friedman. To the party? 

Mr. SoTiRwiNE. Yes. 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did anyone ask you to go to protocol and tell them 
there should be such a party ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you make the first contact with protocol about 
this party? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that either. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. What was it that you had in mind a moment ago 
when you started to say something about telling protocol, or inform- 
ing protocol, of the need for having such a party? 

]Mr. Friedman. That the Department had decided that such a party 
should be held — a party given by the Under Secretary of State, Mr. 
Grew. 

Senator Ferguson. You mean the State Department? 

Mr. Fried^ian. The State Department; yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you have anything to do with selecting the list 
of guests for that party? 

Mr. Friedman. Xo, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you know that that party had been suggested 
initially by the Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall whether the institute took the initia- 
tive. I don't quite recall the details for arranging that affair. The 
point was that there were so many distinguished guests in Washington 
that it seemed to be one of the desirable duties of the Under Secretary 
to entertain them following the institute's conference. I am not sure 
whether the ai'rangements were made or proposed by the institute. I 
am not sure whether they were pi'oposed before the conference was 
over or subsequent to the conference. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4293 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know that the institute had anything to do 
with it ? 

Mr. Friedman. Since the party was for delegates to the interna- 
tional conference, I presume that the institute itself was consulted. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. I asked what you know, Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. Friedmax. I don't know specifically. 

Mr. SorRwiNE. You vouchsafed the information here that you had 
assisted in preparing for that party. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRWixE. Now, will you tell us anything about what you did, 
what your duties were, in connection with that? 

Mr.' Friedman. Well, as I say, specifically my duties were at that 
time in connection with the Protocol Department, informing them of 
the number of guests, the type of party that was desired. 

Mr. SouRW^iNE. Did you do that on behalf of Mr. John Carter 
Vincent ? Was he your chief then '? 

Mr. Friedman. He was my chief at that time; yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You spoke in his name when you made those ar 
rangements ? 

Mr. Friedman. I am not sure that I did, sir. I am not sure whether 
I spoke directly in his name. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You got your authority by virtue of your position 
in his Division, did you not ? 

Mr. Friedman. My authority was my State Department contract. 
I was a member of his Division. And this Division was interested in 
this party at Blair House. 

Senator Eastland. Did you ever tell anybody you were a Com- 
munist ? 

Mr. Friedjian. No, sir; I don't believe I have told anyone. 

Senator Eastland. You don't believe you did. Do you not know ? 

Mr. Friedman. I am quite certain I did not, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Quite certain ? 

]\Ir. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Now, why is there a little question in your 
mind, Mr. Friedman ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, since 

Senator Eastland. Now, do not hesitate. You can answer the ques- 
tion without hesitating. You have been making a good witness. 

Mr. Friedman. I have just been on the cautious side, since in a 
sense over the past years I have spoken to people, and as I say I am 
almost certain that I have never told anyone that I was a member of 
the Communist Party. I am almost prepared to say that I never 
told anyone I was a member of the Communist Party. 

Senator Eastland. Almost prepared ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. You know, his question did not say "a member 
of the Communist Party." 

Senator Eastland. No. 

Mr. Fried3han. I am taking that to mean, sir, a member of the 
Communist Party. 

Senator Eastland. Why is there a question in your mind about 
whether you told people you were a Communist or not ? 

Mr. Friedman. Just on the cautious side, sir. 



4294 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Eastland. Cautious, why ? Because you might have ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I have, sir. 

Senator Eastland. But you are cautious because you might have 
told somebody you were a Communist. Then if you specifically denied 
it, you would be guilty of perjury ; was that your reason ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I just want to be accurate and provide the 
information that the committee is seeking. 

Senator Eastland. Go ahead. 

Mr. Morris. What was your last assignment with the State Depart- 
ment, Mr. Friedman ? We left you at the United Nations Secretariat, 
did we not? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. After that what were your duties with the State 
Department ? 

Mr. Friedman. When I returned from San Francisco I remained 
with the Department until my appointment to the Foreign Service 
or Auxiliary, which I believe I said was October 1945. 

I went to Shanghai as a junior economic officer assigned to the 
American consulate general in Shanghai, to perform the duties of a 
labor attache in China. And I remained in that post from October 
1945, or perhaps it was November 1 by the time I got started, until 
my return to the United States, which was when I departed from 
Shanghai in November 1946. 

Mr. Morris. I see. Now, what was your next employment 
after that? 

Mr. Friedman. From February 1947, when I landed, reached the 
United States from China — I took a slow boat from China on the 
way back — I remained in the New York area. I visited Harvard 
University. I visited Johns Hopkins University, to lecture on China. 
I visited Washington, D. C, to lecture at a local meeting of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations. I was unemployed for 

Senator Eastland. Had you been connected with the Institute of 
Pacific Relations in any way ? 

Mr. Friedman. I had been a member of the institute following the 
conference in 1945, Senator. 

I believe I took out my membership about January 1945 or Feb- 
ruary 1945. 

Senator Eastland. Why ? 

Mr. Friedman. Why did I take it out ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. Why did you join the institute? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I must say that my experience at Hot Springs 
impressed me with two things — its international nature, and secondly, 
the high level of discussion and material which was identified with it. 

Senator Eastland. And it was a fact that the institute was influen- 
tial with the State Department. That was a factor ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; that did not come into it, as I recall. I 
also wanted to get the publications of the institute, which I believe 
required taking out some form of membership. 

Senator Eastland. But while it did not influence you in joining, 
you also knew that the institute was very influential with the State 
Department? 

Mr. Friedman. Influential in what sense. Senator ? 

In respect of what ? 

Senator Eastland. Policies and personnel. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATION'S 4295 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I did not know that the institute was influ- 
ential with reference to policy and I certainly did not know that the 
institute, as you suggest, was influential in respect of personnel. 

Senator Eastland. Then, if they were not influential, why did the 
Department assign you to Hot Springs ? 

Mr. Friedman. Since the Institute of Pacific Relations has, over 
the I believe past 20 or 25 years — I am not sure of the exact length 
of time — held international conferences, the United States was the 
host country in this case, and the institute wanted to have a repre- 
sentative of the American delegation, and it wanted, I believe, to 
provide the American delegation with an opportunity of sending 
observers who were neither delegates 

Senator Eastland. Yes. Now, what other private organizations 
did the State Department assign personnel to, to cover their con- 
ferences ? 

Mr. Friedman. In this matter, sir ? That is, personnel to serve on 
the Secretariat ? 

Senator Eastland. Just like you were assigned to Hot Springs. 

Mr. Friedman. I don't know, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Well, as a matter of fact, no other organization. 
Is that not right ? 

Mr. Friedman. I am not familiar with whether the Department 
had a policy in this respect. All I know is in a sense my own 
emi^irical experience. 

Senator Eastland. Do you not think that the institute was influ- 
ential with the State Department, and, in fact, that it is demonstrated 
that it is, when you, as an employee of the State Department were 
assigned to that conference? Now, you want to be fair about this 
thing. 

Mr. Friedman. Well, let me put it this way : This was one of the 
international meetings which I mentioned. These were international 
meetings in which personnel of the first eminence attended. 

Senator Eastland. Yes. I understand all that. Now, answer my 
question, "Yes" or "No," and then you can explain. 

Mr. Friedman. Could I have the question again, please ? 

Senator Eastland. Do you not think that, by virtue of the fact that 
you, an employee of the State Department, were assigned to that con- 
ference at Hot Springs, Va., it showed that the institute was influ- 
ential with the State Department? 

Mr. Friedman. I would say that I just can't answer "Yes" or "No," 
Senator, to that. 

Senator Eastland. You can answer "Yes" or "No" and then explain 
your answer. 

Mr. Friedman. I would say "No," sir ; it did not show that the insti- 
tute was influential with the State Department. 

Senator Eastland. Well, you answer is "No," then. 

Mr. Friedman. May I explain my answer, sir? 

Senator Eastland. After you answer it, I am going to let you 
explain. 

Now, what is your answer ? — "Yes," or "No" ? 

Mr. Friedman. The answer is "No," Senator. 

Senator Eastland. All right. Now explain. 

Mr. Friedman. I do not believe that the institute was influential 
with the State Department in respect of policy or personnel; that 



4296 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

tlie Department considered the conference in Hot Springs in lOiS of 
sufficient significance to make available personnel when the Institute 
of Pacific Relations made it known that personnel would be welcomed. 

Senator Eastland. All right ; now you say, in regard to policy and 
personnel, that the institute was not influential with the State Depart- 
ment. That is 3'our answer; is it not? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Eastland. All right ; and in what respect was the institute 
influential with the State Department? You limited your ansAver 
to two things : that they were not influential in policy and personnel. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; I took the two points that you had mentioned 
before, Senator. 

Senator Eastland. All right. 

Mr. Friedman. I should say that the institute, to my knowledge, 
was not influential in any other respect as far as the State Depart- 
ment was concerned. 

Senator Eastland. All right. 

Mr. Morris. Now, when you lectured at John Hopkins University, 
with whom did you negotiate to carry on that lecture? 

Mr. Friedjian. With Mr. Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. At that time, you were unemployed ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; I was unemployed. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever get any compensation for that lecture? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe not, sir; no, sir. 

Mr. Morris. I see. What was your next employment, Mr. Fried- 
man? 

Mr. Friedman. My next employment was the London School of 
Economics of the University of London. 

Mr. Morris. How long were you there ? 

Mr. Friedman, Which began in January 1948. If I may just fill 
in the period 

Mr. Morris. Go ahead. 

Mr. Friedman. In September 1947, I went abroad to be a graduate 
student at the London School of Economics. I arrived in London, in 
September, registered for courses at the school, and in Januar}^ tliere 
was a vacancy of an assistant lecturer in the field of colonial social 
science. I was appointed to the lectureship after appearing before a 
selection board of distinguished British scholars. 

I was appointed to the assistant lectureship, and then subsequently, 
I think in October 1950, after serving in the assistant lectureship, I 
was appointed a lecturer in colonial administration at the London 
School of Economics. 

Mr. Morris. Now, when did joii become active in the Committee for 
a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. Friedman. I have never been active in the Committee for a 
Democratic Far Eastern Policy; although I have written a piece 
for its publication and I have spoken on the public platform, where 
I believe the sponsor of the meeting was the Committee for a Demo- 
cratic Far Eastern Policy. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know at the time that that was a Communist 
organization? 

Mr. Friedman. I did not know at the time that that was a Commu- 
nist organization. 

Mr. ^Iorris. Do you recognize it as such now ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATION'S 4297 

Mr. Friedman. I have not had contact with that organization, if I 
recall, for about 3 to 41/2 years, and I could not answer that question. 
I just have no opinion on whether it is or it is not. 

Mr. Morris. I see. Now, with whom did you speak when you spoke 
under the auspices of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern 
Pdlicy? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, now, if I may just refresh my memory: On 
March 6, 1947, I spoke on the platform, or I should say under the 
auspices of the committee, with a speaker named Mr. Chu Tong. C-h-u 
T-o-n-g. 

Mr. Morris. I am sorry. I didn't hear you, Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. Friedman. Mr. Chu Tong was the other speaker that day. 

Mr. Morris. He is a Communist ; is he not ? 

Mr. Friedman, I do not know, sir. 

Mr. Morris. He is now in Ked China ; is he not ? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not know, sir. ~ 

Mr. Morris. Have you read the transcript of our public hearing, 
Mr. Friedman ? 

Mr. Friedman. With reference to what, sir ? 

Mr. Morris. This Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy. 

Mr. Friedman. I have gone over the transcript. 

Mr. Morris. Did you notice our exhibit 8, which is a letter from 
the Communist Party of New York State, signed "May Miller, As- 
sistant Organizing Secretary," which ends up in the last paragraph 
[reading] : 

Any inquiries in relation to further activity can be received by writing to the 
Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy at 111 East Forty-second Street, 
New York City. 

Comradely yours. 

Mr. Friedman. May I look at that ? 

Mr. Morris. By all means. I am asking you if you had read that. 
That is bearing on your present knowledge as to whether it was a 
Communist organization, at this time. 

Mr. Mandel, we have put in your citation that this organization has 
been listed by the Attorney General ; have we not ? 

Mr. Mandel. The Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy 
was cited as subversive by Attorney General Tom Clark on April 27, 
1949. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever inquire as to whether any of these 
organizations were Communist? 

Mr. FitiEDMAN. You are referring to the organization, the Com- 
mittee for a Democratic 

Senator Ferguson. Yes; the organization that you were joining 
and speaking for. 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I did not inquire whether this was a Com- 
munist organization when I was speaking for the organization or 
writing for its publication in 1947. 

Senator Ferguson. You never made an inquiry? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you an economist by profession? 

Mr. Friedman. I am a political scientist by profession. 

Senator Ferguson. You are a political scientist. And you are well 
acquainted with communism? 



4298 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. I won't say "well acquainted," sir. I am familiar 
with some of the writings in the field. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, can you recognize communism when you 
see it or hear it ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I could recognize a Communist point of 
view if I heard it spoken, or I probably could recognize communiim 
by looking at a book ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, the question was, then: When you were 
speaking at this organization, did you know it was Communist ? 

Mr. Friedman. I did not, sir ; no, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, will you receive into the record the 
guest column of the Spotlight on the Far East, which is a publication 
of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, dated April 
1947, a guest column entitled "China's Unions Eefuse To Be Puppets," 
by Julian Friedman. 

That is your article ; is it not, Mr. Friedman ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; it is. 

Mr. Morris. Will you receive that, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; I will receive it. 

(The material referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 740" and is as 
follows:) 

Exhibit No. 740 

[Source: Spotlight on the Far East, published by the Committee for a Democratic Far 

Eastern Policy, vol. II, No. 4, April 1947] 

China's Unions Refuse To Be Puppets 

(By Julian Friedman) 

(For the past two years the author was United States labor 
attach^ iu China. He became personally acquainted with all ranks 
of trade-unionists and speaks with authority on the Chinese labor 
movement. ) 

Genuine trade-unionists are not easy to find in Kuomintang China. To reach 
them, you have to visit obscure, innocent-looking alleys or out-of-the-way fields 
in the suburbs of the cities. 

But it is most dangerous for them to be known as trade-unionists or to work 
openly for real trade-unionism. 

The Chiang Kai-shek government is absolutely opposed to trade-unionism 
because it means democracy, a menace to Chiang's plutocracy. Genuine trade- 
unionists are certainly opposed to the present anti-labor National Government. 

Many were originally either company-union or Kuomintang headquarters' 
appointees. There were also secret-society agents and gangsters in labor roles. 
The latter are quickly exposed today by the workers themselves. 

As for the company-union and bureaucratic-union officials, the workers have 
given them every opportunity to work for the real trade-union movement. So 
they now face this dilemma : serve as Kuomintang stooges and "finks" and lose 
support among the workers or fight with the workers and be attacked by the 
fascists. 

That several have chosen the latter course has enraged the National Govern- 
ment and Kuomintang, which has retaliated with arrests, threats of violence, 
expulsion from official labor circles, purging of official unions, and reorganizing 
them. 

Nothing illustrates the change in labor so aptly as the Shanghai anti-civil-war 
demonstration of June 23, 1946. On the day before, the government had celled 
official trade-union representatives to a meeting and dictated resolutions which 
said that no workers or unions would participate in the demonstration, and that 
any persons in the demonstration could not be considered workers. The resolu- 
tions were "unanimously adopted" because the government chairman said so, 
with no one else given a chance to speak. But more than 100,000 workers turned 
out the next day. And the representatives who had "passed" the resolutions the 
previous day marched at their head. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4299 

Mr. Morris, Have you read Herbert Philbrick's book, Mr. Fried- 
man? 

Mr. Friedman. I did not read the entire book. 

Mr. JMoRRis. Have you read that that portion which pertains to 
you? 

Mr. Friedman. I looked at the index and saw my name there, and 
turned to that portion of the book where my name appears, and Mr. 
Philbrick says I spoke on the public platform, if I recall it, of the 
Twentieth Century Association, which he describes as a traditional 
liberal organization of Boston; that I spoke with Mr. Lewis Lyon, 
the curate of the Nieman Foundation, I believe formerly editor of 
the Boston Globe, who was chairman of the meeting, and I believe 
the other speaker was Mr. Philip Jaffe. 

Mr. IMoRRis. Now, did he say who arranged that meeting? 

Mr. Friedman, I knew that the meeting had been arranged at the 
request of the Boston committee. 

Mr, INIoRRis, Not who asked you, but who made the arrangements 
for you to go up there and speak. 

Mr. Friedman. I was in Boston at the time, or, rather, I should say 
that I was planning to go up to Harvnrd in Cambridge at the time. 
I think these plans of mine were known by the Committee for a Demo- 
cratic Far Eastern Policy, and that they asked me would I be avail- 
able as a speaker, and I believe Rev. Stephen Fritchman, of the Uni- 
tarian Service Committee in Boston, actually sent me the invitation. 

Mr. Morris. In connection with Senator Eastland's question, have 
you ever told anybody that you were a member of the Communist 
'Party ? 

I am asking you if you were associated in any way with the arbitra- 
tion proceeding of Betty Levin. 

Mr. Friedman. There are two questions? Or just one question? 

Mr. Morris. One question is : Are you acquainted with the arbitra- 
tion proceedings of Betty Levin ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I am acquainted with the arbitration pro- 
ceedings of Betty Levin. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Would you give us a little background material on that 
subject. Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Morris, My recollection of the testimony is that you were act- 
ing behind the scenes in that arbitration, 

Mr, Friedman, Mrs. Levin testified? 

Mr, Morris. No; Mrs. Widener, a witness before this committee, 
has testified that you were active behind the scenes in the arbitration 
proceedings of Betty Levin. 

Mr. Friedman. May I just read Mrs. Wideners statement? She 
does not quite say that, 

Mr. ]MoRRis. By all means. I am just asking your recollection of 
the episode. 

Mr. Friedman. Mrs, Widener contended that she made some in- 
quiries about my participation in these proceedings, and she first went 
to a Miss Sarah Hoda:ekinson. a friend of hers, employed, so the record 
says, by the State Department's Mission at the United Nations, and 
Miss Hodgekinson referred Mrs, Widener to a reporter, who even- 
tually referred her to Mr. Frederick Woltman, of the New York 
World-Telegram. 



4300 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. MoRRivS. Yes. Now, Mr. Friedman, I do not want to go into 
that with too much detail. I just want to know what your connection 
was. I just made general reference. I think she said yoii were work- 
ing behind the scenes on it. 

Mr. Friedman. May I say she is quoting Mr. Frederick Woltman. 

]SIr. Morris. No ; she is not. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Counsel and the witness need not argue about what 
is in the record. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. You just answer his question. 

Mr. Morris. What was your activity with the arbitration proceed- 
ing about Betty Levin ? 

Mr. Friedman. I became aware of this case through two sources. 
The first source, I believe, was the New York press. And this was 
some time after I had returned from China, was in the United States, 
and clearly after the case had gone to arbitration. 

Mr. Morris. Now, what did you learn from the New York press, 
Mr. Friedman ? 

Mr. Friedman. I learned of the existence of the arbitration. 

Mr. Morris. What was the problem there ? Tell us what the prob- 
lem is, Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. Friedman. May I finish, Mr. Morris? I would like to be 
helpful in this case. 

Mr. Morris. Go ahead. 

Mr, Friedman. The thing that caught my eye about the reports of 
the case was references to a number of books on China, if I recall 
correctly, and also references to an organization called the China Aid 
Council. And I believe — I am not sure whether this was in the press — 
the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy. 

Mr. Morris. And you had been connected with all of those things? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. If I may explain chronologically 

Mr. Morris. It is all right to explain that, Mr. Friedman, but I 
think there is a chairman here, and some Senators, 

Senator Ferguson, We want to get along as fast as we can, 

Mr. Morris. Not only that, but we also would like to know what 
the case was about. You haven't told us that, Mr. Friedman. 

Mr. Friedman. If I may tell how I came into the case, since it is 
really, Senator, not my full knowledge of the entire case that I can 
give 

Senator Ferguson. How did you get into it ? Answer that question. 

Mr. Friedman, I volunteered my services, because I was interested 
in the issues, and I approached the counsel for the union in this case. 

Mr, Morris, What was that counsel? 

Mr, Friedman, The firm was the New^ York law firm of Boudin, 
Glickstein, and Cohen, I am not quite sure if that is the right name, 
but I know that the Boudin name is identified with it. 

Mr. Morris. What was the union involved? 

Mr. Friedman. The union involved, if I may read from the arbi- 
trator's award, was the Social Service Employees Union, Local 19, 
United Office and Professional Workers of America, CIO. 

Mr. Morris. That has been expelled by the CIO as a Communist- 
controlled union, has it not? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not know, sir. 

Mr, Morris. Proceed. Tell me this, Mr. Friedman. Was not the 
issue in that case whether or not Betty Levin had been putting books 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4301 

into the conncil library, the subject council library, in such a way as 
to cause a certain partisan interpretation, a partisan atmosphere, to 
the whole library? 

Mv. Friedman. I don't believe it was the library, Mr. Morris. 

I believe that what was involved in the case were book lists which 
she made up in the course of her educational work on behalf of the 
national council. 

Mr. INIoRRis. That's right. What came to your attention were books 
that you had been acquainted with from your own experience in China 
and in the State Department ; is that correct ? 

Mr, Friedman. Yes, although I had to look over one or two of the 
books at the time, since I was not too familiar with them. 

Mr. Morris. Now, tell me this, Mr. Friedman. You were acquainted 
with those books, were you not? 

Mr. Friedman. I was acquainted with almost all of the China books. 

Mr. Morris. What were the books ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, if I may read the list of books : 
Red Star Over China, by Mr. Edgar Snow 
The Good Earth, by Pearl Buck 
Man's Fate, by Andre ISIalraux 
The Challenge of Red China, by Gunther Stein 
Solution in Asia, by Owen Lattimore 
Battle Hymn of China, by Agnes Smedley 
Report from Red China, by Harrison Forman 
Shark Fins and Millet, by Ilona Ralph Sues 

And the other book is Village in August by T'ien Chun. 

These are the books on China. 

]\Ir. Morris. You said you had recognized those books. Where had 
you seen those books before ? 

Mr. Friedman. I had seen these books in book shops and libraries. 
I have read some of tliese books, because I possessed them. 

Mr. Morris. You had read them, and you were acquainted with 
them. 

Mr. Friedman. I had read most of them, and at the time of the 
arbitration proceeding. I was not familiar, not fully familiar, with 
the book called Village in xVugust, which was a novel ; and I do not 
believe it was one of the books on which I had to comment. 

Mr. Morris. Tell me further about the books. Now, had you used 
those books Avhen you were in the State Department, Mr. Friedman? 

Mr. Friedman. I think that I had read these books in the course of 
my preparation — at least those which were available at the time I was 
in the State Department — read them in the course of my preparation 
for the Far East. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Were they general background reading for the State 
Department people ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; these were books which were generally avail- 
able, which one wanting to find out something about China could read. 

Senator Ferguson. Were they anti-Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. These books, sir? I don't think I can answer that 
question. Senator, because I don't think that one can — at least, an 
academic man with intellectual honesty cannot simply say whether 
a book is pro- or anti-Communist. 

88348— 52— pt. 12 18 



4302 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. Can you tell us whether any of them were anti- 
Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. This is purely opinion you are asking for, but I 
believe Mr. Lattimore's Solution in Asia might be classified as an 
anti-Communist book, although I would not want to say that any of 
these books were essentially anti-Communist or pro-Communist. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you think the Communist book stores 
would sell an anti-Communist book? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't know the selling policies of Communist book 
stores, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know there is now testimony that these 
books were recommended as the party line and sold in Communist 
book stores ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have not seen that testimony. 

Senator Eastland. The testimony was stronger than that : that 
the employees were instructed by the party to recommend these books 
to party members as a Communist program. 

Mr. Sour WINE. Mr. Friedman, do you remember what you testified 
in executive session with regard to the book, Shark Fins and Millet, 
by Ilona Ralph Sues ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; I believe I said that this book was critical, 
particularly critical, of Nationalist China. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. That is not what you said, but is that a fact? Was 
it particularly critical of Nationalist China? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, may I go into that ? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Just answer the question, yes or no. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I would say it was particularly critical of one 
important section of Nationalist China. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Was it procoalition Government? 

Mr. Friedman. If I recall correctly, I believe that was the general 
tendency of the book. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was it proradical reform in China ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, what I would call radical reform. 

Mr. Sourwine. You testified to that effect in executive session, did 
you not ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. But you want to say the book is not pro-Communist. 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. I would not say that this book is neces- 
sarily pro-Communist, any more than I would like to say any of the 
books are pro- or anti-Communist. 

Mr. Sourwine. It was certainly pro the Chinese Communists, was 
it not ? 

Mr. Friedman. I am just trying to remember the book. I haven't 
looked at it in a long time. I came to this book for a rather special 
interest at the time I was employed by the State Department. May 
I explain tliat. Senator? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, if you can do it in a few sentences. 

Mr. Friedman. All right. Fine. 

This book has an unusual description of Miss Sues' meeting with 
a very famous Chinese Nationalist leader closely identified with the 
Generalissimo. And that is a Mr. Tu Yueh-Sen, and also identified 
with Mr. Tu Yueh-Sen was Mr. Chu Sueh-Fan, the Chinese Asso- 
ciation of Labor Chairman, a person who, in my official duties, as 
labor attache, I would have to meet. And consequently this was one 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4303 

of the books on which I got, you might call it, personality data on 
Chinese labor officials and a brief description of Chinese labor asso- 
ciation. , • 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you remember testifying in executive session 
that Miss Sues was friendly to the Chinese Communists ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I did say that, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you mean her personally? Or her book? 

Mr. Friedman. I would say personally, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know her personally? 

Mr. Friedman. I have met Miss Sues in connection with the book. 

Mr. Morris. I see. Have you read her testimony before this com- 
mittee that she was a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall it, sir. If it is in the first five volumes, 
I perhaps have read it. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Friedman, when did you first meet Owen Latti- 
more? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I met Owen Lattimore some time in No- 
vember or December 1944. 

Mr. Morris. "Wliere did you meet him ? 

Mr. Friedman. I met him, I believe, in the State Department 
building. 

Mr. Morris. In whose office ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe it was the office of Mr. John Carter Vin- 
cent, the Chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs. 

Mr. INIoRRis. What was he doing there? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall — no, I don't even know the purpose 
of Mr. Lattimore's visit. I do know Mr. Vincent informed me that 
Mr. Lattimore was coming into the Department, and that I might 
meet him on that occasion. 

Mr. Morris. Did you look forward to that? 

Mr. Friedman. I certainly did, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did you show him any State Department j)apers 
at that time ? 

Mr. Friedman. I showed him, if I recall correctly, a memorandum, 
a background memorandum, which I was preparing on the subject 
of Sinkiang, this far western province of China, which was at that 
time going through some troubles. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I get back to that arbitra- 
tion proceeding? 

Mr. Sourwine. May I ask one question about this memorandum, 
first? 

By "background memorandum," do you mean a memorandum cover- 
ing the available information about Mr. T'ien Chun ? 

Mr. Friedman. This was a memorandum that summarized the avail- 
able information. 

Mr. Sourwine. That summarized the available information about 
T'ien Chun? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, within, I believe, about a page or page and 
a quarter, which was a space assigned to me. 

Mr. Sourwine. You got all the available information about T'ien 
Chun summarized in a page or a page and a quarter ^ 

Mr. Friedman. As far as I could, yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. He told you it was a good job you had done? 



4304 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, Senator. And as I recall, I was rather 
pleased at this, that Mr. Lattimore, who was a recognized authority 
in the field of inner Asia, thought that I had done a good job. 

Senator Ferguson. And you let him read it, and he approved it? 

Mr. Friedman. I did let him read it, and Mr. Vincent knew that 
Mr. Lattimore was reading the memorandum. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Friedman, did you aid Betty Levin in her arbitra- 
tion difficulty ? 

Mr. Friedman. I appeared in the arbitration proceedings as an ex- 
pert witness, put on the stand by the union of which Miss Levin was 
a member. And I was on the stand, on the scene, on the record, in 
front of Mr. James Lawrence Fly, who was the arbitrator, and I was 
cross-examined, answered questions on books put forward to me by the 
counsel for the National Council of Jewish Women. 

Mr. Morris. With whom in ])articular in, that union did you carry 
on negotiations prior to testifying in that pr<K'eeding^ 

Mr. Friedman. The only person I carried on negotiations with, if 
you want to use that term, the person in a sense who suggested I might 
appear as an expert witness, was the attorney for the union, Mr. 
Boudin. 

Mr. Morris. I see. Did you meet any union officials? 

Mr. Friedman. The only union official I can remember meeting then 
was Mr. Bernard Siegel ; my dealings in respect of the case were en- 
tii'ely with the lawyer for Miss Levin and the union. 

Mr. Morris. I see. Now, did you testify about the books that you 
have just mentioned? 

j\Ir. Friedman. I was asked to testify to the best of my knowledge, 
having recently returned from Chiini, on the accuracy and the con- 
tent of the books. That was my pi'incipal service, to read, go over 
these books, and to make known whether 1 thought the books portrayed 
the situation to the extent that I knew it accurately, and whether the 
books represented in that sense coin})etent work. 

Senator Ferguson. Was there any question in that case as to com- 
munism ? 

Mr. Friedman. That was not the particular issue. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, was it an issue at all ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. Generally speaking; yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. That she was a Communist ? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not believe I heard that charged. 

Senator Ferguson. Or pro-Communist ? 

Mr. Friedman. The reference of "pro-Communist" certainly ap- 
pears in the case ; yes, sir. And the ar])itrator himself points out that 
there was a bias in the book list, or a lack, certainly, of nonpartisan- 
ship. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you point that out when you testified about 
the books ? 

Mr. Friedman. 1 think that the principal part of my testimony 
concerned the content of the books, the accuracy in terms of the scene 
that I was familiar with. I recall vaguely being asked whether any 
of the books were pro-Communist or anti-Communist. I also recall 
that I believe it was the counsel for the National Council of Jewish 
Women — that would be ]Mr. Jesse Fiiedon — asked me whether I 
thought the books taken together would be pro or anti; and I remem- 
ber that I was also asked, I believe by the arbitrator, although I don't 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4305 

recall whether it was the arbitrator of Mr. Boiiclin or Mr. Friedon, 
Avhether I could make up a list of books, could recomuiend a list of 
books which would be pro-Communist. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Have you run down now ? 

Mr. Friedman. Have I run down now ? 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Will you answer the question now, please? 

Did you in your testimony point out to anybody that these books 
had bias? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not recall whether I pointed that out, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Wliy didn't you say that in the fTi-st place, instead 
of going on here for 3 minutes with stuff that had nothing to do with 
the question ? You are fencing with this committee, sir, and you are 
wasting the committee's time. 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. I apologize to the chairman if he feels 
that I am fencing with the connnittee. 

Senator Ferguson. Let us try and keep it on the track and answer 
the questions directly. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, one of those books was definitely pro-Com- 
munist, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Friedman. One of the books on the list could be taken as pro- 
Communist, but I still would prefer to refrain from "pro'' or "anti." 

Mr. Sourwine, Whicli one ? 

Mr. Friedman. The one book in my estimation you could consider 
pro-Communist was probably Battle Hynui of China by Agnes Smed- 
ley. 

Mr. Sourwine. As a matter of fact, regardless of what you said 
here this morning about not characterizing anything as pro-Com- 
munist, you did characterize that book as pro-Communist in the ex- 
ecutive session, didn't you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Voluntarily, sir, in reply to questions put to me. 
Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, if you were not acquainted with commu- 
nism any more than you indicate this morning, how could you be an 
expert on these books ? 

Mr. Friedman. I testified on the books, sir, to the extent of my own 
experiences and my preparation reading on the subject. I did not put 
myself forward as the only authority, as a supreme expert. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, you were asked to testify as an expert? 
, Mr. Friedman. I was asked to testify as an expert ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Therefore, you had to read the books to find 
out. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. I am familiar with almost all of these books. 
The ones which I do not believe I had to testify one were the novels, 
sir. I may be mistaken on failing to recall that accurately, but I be- 
lieve it was essentially the books with which I was most familiar by 
actual experience. 

Mr. Morris. Well, now, has anyone told you that Betty Levin is 
a Communist, is or was a Communist ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have heard second hand that Miss Levin was a 
Communist. And that was only recently. 

Mr. Morris. I see. Now, had anyone told you at that time, or had 
you any reason to believe at that time, that Betty Levin was a Com- 
munist ? 



4306 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. I do not recall that anyone told me at that time 
that Miss Levin was a Communist, and I had no reason to believe 
at that time that she was a member of the Communist Party or a Com- 
munist in the sense of being a Marxist. All I knew at that particular 
time — I did not know Miss Levin when I came into the affair. The 
proceedings were already under way, and my relations were prin- 
cipally with Miss Levin's attorney, Mr. Boudin. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ask the counsel as to whether or not 
his client was a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ask anyone? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not believe so ; no, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you went in there to testify as an expert 
on these books, and you made no inquiry as to whether or not the per- 
son was a Communist that you were in effect defending? 

Mr. Friedman. In effect, sir, I wanted to stick to the books and 
not to participate in the larger issues of the proceeding. 

Senator Ferguson. Sure. The larger issue was whether or not 
she was a Communist, whether she was putting out Communist propa- 
ganda. And you did not want to know about that. You just wanted 
to go in and testify as an expert on the propaganda. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. On the books. Excuse me, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, did you inquire from any Communist as 
to whether these books were pro-Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I did not. The opinions that I gave the 
arbitrator were my own opinions, based on knowledge of the books 
and knowledge of the areas which these books dealt with. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did you indicate at that time that you thought 
Agnes Smedley's book was pro-Communist ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that at the request of the arbitrator, in 
saying which books I would include if a pro-Communist list were 
being made up, I believe 1 included Miss Smedley's book ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. How does ihat answer the question? In other words, 
you did indicate at that time that you thought it was pro-Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. That it would fit in with a list of pro-Communist 
books ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. But the others you said would not fit in with such a 
list. 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that was my testimony, yes, sir. I do not 
recall it in detail. 

Mr. Morris, Have you written anything under the auspices of the 
Institute of Pacific Relations? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I have written something under the aus- 
pices of the Institute of Pacific Relations, a chapter or supplement, 
rather, on Labor in Nationalist China, 1945-48, and this appears in 
a larger publication of the institute called Notes on Labor in Na- 
tionalist China. 

Mr. Morris. Wlio compiled those notes ? 

Mr. Friedman. The notes, I believe, were originally compiled by a 
Chinese writer, but written up in this country, I believe, or written 
up anyway and published under the name of Mr. Israel Epstein. 

Mr. Morris. Is he a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. I would have reason to believe he is pro-Communist 
sir. I do not know whether he is a Communist. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4307 

Mr. Morris. Do you know where he is now ? 

Mr. Friedman. 1 believe you told me yesterday he was in Peiping. 

Mr. Morris. I didn't tell you that yesterday. 

Mr. Friedman. I believe it was suggested to me. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know whether he is in Peiping ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe he is in Peiping. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you have any other information, other than the 
information you think you got last night 'i 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I believe I saw an article of his in a Chinese 
publication. Not China Today; an English language Chinese pub- 
lication which Mr. Epstein has written recently. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. What publication? 

Mr. Morris. Was it China Monthly ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. China Eeview ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is this a paper published in Communist China that 
you are talking about ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe it is published either in Communist China 
or Hong Kong. It used to be published in Hong Kong. 

Mr. Morris. Do you read it regularly ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I do not. 

Mr. Morris. Didn't you testify in executive session that you dis- 
covered, you thought, that Israel Epstein was a Communist when 
you heard about his departure for Peiping ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; I believe I may have testified to that effect. 

Mr, Morris. You did know he left for Peiping, then, at that time? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. How did you hear that ? 

Mr. Friedman. I heard — now, how did I hear this ? I am not quite 
sure how I learned that Mr. Epstein had left for Peiping. I believe 
I heard while I was still in London, but I am not quite sure. 

Mr. Morris. Did some Communist tell you that ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, how was it that you happened to collaborate 
with Israel Epstein in this writing project for the Institute of Pacific 
Relations? 

Mr. Friedman. I did not collaborate with Mr. Epstein in this pro- 
ject. I was invited by Mr. William Holland of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations, invited in 1948, to write an introduction to this 
study of Chinese labor, which Mr. Epstein was preparing under the 
auspices of the Institute of Pacific Relations. I agreed to write the 
introduction, and then subsequently was informed by Mr. Holland 
that he preferred to have a supplement covering the period in which I 
was in China and the events immediately following. In writing to 
Mr. Holland, I agreed to receive Mr. Epstein's manuscript, and read 
over the manuscript, and I replied with criticism of the manuscript. 
And it was on that basis that I did write the supplement, and I believe 
it was eventually published some time in 1949. Or I should say mineo- 
graphed. It was not published in ordinary book form. 

Mr. Morris. Had you ever met Israel Epstein at the time ? 

Mr. Friedman. I had met Mr. Epstein on one or two occasions. 

Mr. Morris. Wliere had you met him ? 



4308 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I met him first of all — I may again be 
mistaken — in connection with the Committee for a Democratic Far 
Eastern Policy. And I dined with Mr. Epstein at his home in Staten 
Island some time in 1947, at a time when he wanted to introduce me to 
a correspondent for the famous Chinese newspaper, the Dagoon 
Bow. 

INIr. Morris. Who was the correspondent? 
Mr. Friedman. I believe Miss Yang Gong. 
Mr. Morris. Where is she now? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't know where Miss Yang Gong is now. 
Mr. Morri§. Who was the Chinese writer who prepared the original 
notes which Mr. Israel Epstein converted into this particular book? 
Mr. Friedman. I don't recall at the moment. Perhaps Mr. Mandel 
would let me see, and I could read it. 

Mr. Morris. Is People's China the name of the publication wherein 
you read that ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; People's China is correct. It used to have 
another name. 
Mr. SouRWiNE. How do you receive copies of that magazine? 
Mr. Friedman. Oh, I think one- can buy it on newsstands in many 
places. 

Mr. SoTJRwiNE. Is that how you get it ? 
Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I do not subscribe to it. 
Mr. Morris. In the October 16, 1951, issue of People's China, there 
is an article by Israel Epstein entitled "Return to New China." 
Senator Ferguson. Do you want to receive that ? 
Mr. Morris. I just want it noted. 

Do you know Israel Epstein's wife, Elsie Fairfax Cholmeley ? 
Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I do know JSIrs. Cholmeley. 
Mr. Morris. How well do you know her ? 

Mr. Friedman. I met her at the Committee for a Democratic Far 
Eastern Policy, where she was employed, and I met her at her home. 
1 may have met her on the occasion on which I spoke, under the aus- 
pices of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy in New 
York. And I saw her in London, England, in January, I believe 
January 1951. But I am not quite sure whether it was 1950 or 1951. 
Mr. Morris. How frequently did you go to the offices of the Com- 
mittee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall, sir. In this period of time, I was in 
New York City, and I may have dropped in frequently or infrequent- 
ly. I don't recall. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know that she is in Red China now ? 
Mr. Friedman. I do not know that definitely ; no, sir. When I saw 
her in London, she informed me that she was returning to the United 
States, and I did not see her after that occasion. 

Mr. Morris. Was Israel Epstein connected with the Allied Labor 
News? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I believe that is the same Israel Epstein. And 
also Time magazine. 

Mr. Morris. Did you tell Mrs. Widener that you were active on 
behalf of Betty Levin in the arbitration proceeding? 

Mr. Friedman. From what I can recall of the conversation in the 
company of Mrs. Widener on this evening, the date of which neither 
Mrs. Widener nor I seemed to remember, but which must have been 



INSTITUT3 OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4309 

in April or May, 1947, some months after I was out of State Depart- 
ment employment— what I recall is that I probably did discuss the 
case. And that is particularly the relationship of the books. 

Mr. Morris. You say you probably did. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Don't you have any clear recollection of that con- 
versation ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I do not, sir. This evening in question was 
of the least significance and importance. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know that you did talk to Mrs. Widener ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I could answer that, sir; no, and yes. She 
was not Mrs. Widener at the time. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You know the person that we are referring to when 
we ask that question, don't you ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have reason to believe I know the person, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know the person who is now Mrs. Alice 
Widener ? 

Mr. Friedman. If she was the former Mrs. Alice Berezhovsky, 
then I do know the person and met her one evening at the home of 
Mr. Clark Andrews, or rather Mrs. Clark Andrews, and I saw her some 
weeks later, I believe at the wedding of Mr. and Mrs. Andrews, at 
which she was present. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you talk to Mrs. Berezhovsky at the time of 
your meeting ? 

Mr, Friedman. I remember that we did have conversation that 
evening ; yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwaNE. Do you remember anj^thing about what you talked 
about ? 

Mr. Friedman. Not specifically ; no, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you do not deny what she said. 

Mr. Friedman. I do deny it, sir. I should deny it on the basis, sir, 
that had she said some of the things which she claims she said, had I 
said some of the things which she claims I said, I would certainl}' 
have remembered that evening. 

May I add a word to that, Senator? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Friedman. I have asked Mr. Berezhovsk3% who was subsequent- 
ly divorced, a year or perhaps 2 years after this conversation which 
Mrs. AVidener talked about. Mr. Berezhovsky informed me that in 
his memory he cannot recall any single time 

Mr, Morris. He was not there, was he ? 

Mr. Friedman. Excuse me. Senator. He was present. 

Mr. Morris. He was not there at that conversation. 

Mr. Friedman. He came to the home of Mrs. Andrews, at that time 
INIrs. Ullman — he came to pick up his wife and take her home. He 
had previously, as I recall, been at a concert, which he was either con- 
ducting or participating in. He came later in the evening, and I recall 
Mrs. Berezhovsky going home with Mr. Berezhovsky. 

Mr. Sourwine. Are you quite sure about that? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes I am, sir. 

Mr. SouRAviNE. You are under oath here. There is no question in 
your mind about it. That much you remember clearly. The rest may 
be vague, but that much you remember clearly ? 



4310 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. Not only do I remember it to that extent, sir, but I 
have discussed this with Mr. Berezhovsky and with Mr. and Mrs. An- 
drews, and both, or all three of them, remember that Mr. Berezhov- 
sky came later in the evening and left the house with Mrs. Berezhov- 
sky. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Oh, you have tried to refresh your memory about 
this incident, have you ? 

Mr. Friedman. When I 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Answer that "Yes" or "No." 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You have done that since you have read testimony 
in these hearings about it, is that right ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Now, with all of your efforts to refresh your memory 
about this, you still can recall nothing about it other than what yon 
have told us ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir, I have asked Mr. Andrews and Mrs. An- 
drews and Mr. Berezhovsky, who was present part of the evening, 
whether they could remember what was discussed. 

The most they could tell me they remember was that in a sense 
politics was discussed, but that there were no references which Mrs. 
Berehovsky herself says were made that evening. 

Mr. Morris. You testified a while ago that you could not recall 
whether you had mentioned the arbitration proceeding. 

Mr. Friedman. I said I believe I explained the arbitration pro- 
ceeding. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you think that is what you said ? 

Mr. Friedman. Excuse me, sir ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think that is what you said, that you had 
explained the arbitration proceeding ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe the record will show that I was interrupted 
as I was explaining. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you think the record will show that you said you 
explained the arbitration proceeding to Mrs. Widener ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I explained to the persons in the room at 
the time what the arbitration proceeding was and why it was so 
interesting. 

Mr. Sourwine. Was Mrs. Berezhovsky in the room at the time ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe she was, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Well, now, when Mr. Morris asked you if you had 
told Mrs. Berezhovsky — using the name Widener ; but you didn't make 
the claim that you didn't know who he meant — when he asked if you 
had told her about your connection with the arbitration proceedings, 
we had a great deal of dijSiculty getting the answer. 

Now, the answ^er to that question is "Yes," then, isn't it? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that I did tell her, yes, sir. But based on 
recollection, sir. 

Mr. Morris. But that is all you can recall about the conversation ? 

Mr. Friedman. About that particular conversation, yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Now, have you read the testimony of Eugene Dooman 
before this committee ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have, sir. 



mSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4311 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever leak information from area committee 
meetings in the State Department to correspondents, left-wing corre- 
spondents ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I did not leak information to left-wing 
correspondents. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you leak it to any one ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. The best of my recollection is I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, now, wait. You ought to have a recol- 
lection on that, if you leaked information out of a Department of 
Government. Did you leak any information to any one outside of 
Government ? 

Mr. Friedman. Will you please define ''leaked" ? 

Senator Ferguson. Did you give information that you were work- 
ing on in Government, or obtained as an employee of Government, 
to people outside of Government? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I believe, sir, that I have discussed Avith a 
number of people matters which were matters of our foreign policy. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Friedman. But I do not remember specifically — in fact, I would 
say that specifically I did not leak information. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, you and I are having difficulty, then, 
over the word ''leak" ; is that it ? Did you give any pamphlets or any 
memorandums of any papers to anyone ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. In the course of my employment in the 
State Department, I have officially given out publications in the course 
of my duties. And in connection with one matter, and that is a study 
on Japan, I did make available some notes. 

Senator Ferguson. Some notes. And whom did you give those 
notes to? 

Mr. Friedman. Those notes were given to Lt. Andrew Roth. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes.- Now, you do not classify him as a left- 
wing correspondent ? 

Mr. Friedman. Mr. Roth at that time was known to me only as a 
lieutenant in the United States Navy, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, now, what was a lieutenant in the United 
States Navy doing coming to you for notes on foreign policy ? 

Mr. Friedman. These were not notes on foreign policy. Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. What were they on? 

Mr. Friedman. These were notes on the history of the Japanese 
labor movement. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Now, what dicl Roth want with the 
notes on the Japanese labor movement ? 

Mr. Friedman. Roth at that time had written but had not yet pub- 
lished a book entitled, "Dilemma in Japan," and he wanted to check, 
if I may continue just a moment, sir, the accuracy of his own material 
against the notes which I had. 

Senator Ferguson. Wliich was Government material. 

Mr. Friedman. Which was material — yes ; which one I think would 
properly say was Government material. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Now, were we at war at that time ? 

Mr. Friedman. We were, sir. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. And this was material that you had obtained 
as an employee of the United States Government? 



4312 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; this was information in my possession 
as an employee of tlie United States Government. 

Senator Perousox. And yon gave it to Lieutenant Eotli? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. This was information which I had com- 
piled on the history of the Japanese labor movement, mainly, if not 
all, from public sources, from the" usual books on the subject. I had 
put it together, and Roth wanted to use the material. 

Senator Ferguson. And von were paid for vour labor bv the United 
States Government ? 

Mr. Friedman. I was in the employment of the United States Gov- 
ernment at the time; yes, sir. 

Senator Feiujuson. And were paid for your work!' 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferouson. All right. Now, did you ever give anybody 
else information? 

Mr. Friedman. While I was employed by the Government? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. Or did you take any away with you when 
you quit employment with the Government, and give it to them? You 
showed j\Ir. Lattimore this memorandum that you had jirepared. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. That was work that you were working on. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever give anything to Y. Y. Hsu ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. What did you give to Hsu ? 

Mr. Friedman. Mr. Hsu had written to the Dei^artment to see if 
we could provide him with a map which could be used in his study on 
conditions, 1 believe social and economic conditions, in the liberated 
areas of Ghina. And 1 rej)lied by sending him a nonrestrictecl map 
which had come in from the Far East, and which he ac- epted, in 
exchange for which 1 believe he sent the Department first copies of 
his report. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Now, whom did you consult about 
turning this matter over? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall whether I consulted anyone spe- 
cifically, sir. I pi-obably took this act on my own. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you give Roth this information? 

ISIr. P'kiei):\i AN. I would say perhaps March — I am not quite sure — 
probably ^larch or February 1945. 

Senator Ferguson. 1945. 

Mr. Friedman. It.was shortly after I met JNIr. Roth. 

Senator Fi:r(jus()N. And when was he prosecuted, or a case made 
against him? When was he arrested? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe he was arrested some time in June of '45. 

Senator Ferguson. And one of the things they arrested him for was 
the taking of information out of the State Department, or the obtain- 
ing of information out of the State Department; is that right? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall the exact charge, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever hear of the Amerasia case? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. Of course, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. And you knew Roth was one of the parties in 
the Amerasia case ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4313 

Senator Ferousox. And yon had <riven him information ont of the 
State Department in March of tlie same year that he was arrested? 

Mr. Friedman. In February or March the same year, I gave him 
some notes on Japanese labor history ; yes, sir. 

Senator Fergusox. Xow, did you ever give him any other papers? 

Mr. Friedman. Xot that I recall, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, try to recall. 

Mr. Friedman. I am almost certain, sir, that I did not give ]\Ir. 
Roth any other pajiers. In fact, Mr. Roth gave me some pa]:)ers which 
were not official publications, but what he called information which he 
had gotten from outside sources and which I had passed on to Mr. 
Vincent. 

Senator Ferguson. You sav you obtained that information from 
Roth out of the Navy ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I do not believe this was naval information. 

Senator Ferguson. Was he in uniform at the time? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; I believe he was. 

Mr. Morris. When we are talking about Y. Y. Hsu. did you know 
Y. Y. Hsu at the time you gave him that material ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; I did. 

Mr. Morris. Where had you met him? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I first met Y. Y. Hsu through Miss Ilona 
Ralph Sues, at the time I was interested in this labor section of her 
book, which I described before. And then I subsequently, if I recall 
correctly, saw Mr. Hsu at the Institute of Pacific Relations confer- 
ence at Hot Springs, and it was at that time that he raised the question 
of getting a suitable map for the publication which he was writing 
under the auspices of the institute, and I believe after that he wrote 
me at the Dej^artment asking if such a map were available or any maps 
were available which would be suitable, and we paid to him, sir, the 
same courtesy we paid to most scholars in the field, helping make avail- 
able what was not restricted, and which would, in a sense, advance 
the cause of scholarship. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know he was a Communist at that time ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Were you acquainted with his Communist record at 
that time? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know where he is now ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe he is in Red China. 

Senator Ferguson. Another question. You were working for Mr. 
Vincent at the time these papers were given to Lieutenant Roth ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. And you had a desk in Mr. Vincent's office? 

Mr. Friedman. For part of the time, sir, yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. For part of the time. At the time you gave these 
papers to Roth ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't believe so, no, sir. I am not sure at which 
time I had a desk in the same room as Mr. Vincent and at which time 
I was outside in the larger room. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know Service ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I met Mr. Service. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever give any information to Service ? 



4314 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. The information that I must have given Mr. Service 
was official information of the State Department while he was on 
assignment to the Department. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. But he was working in your Department? 

Mr. Friedman. He was visiting onr department at that time. He 
was on leave from China, if I recall. 

Senator Ferguson. Did yon know one Philip Jaffe? 

Mr. Friedman. I did not know Mr. Philip Jaffe while I was in the 
service of the United States Government. I did meet Mr. Jaffe after 
I had left Government service. 

Senator Ferguson. And that was after the case against Jaffe ? 

Mr. Friedman. Long after the case against Jaffe; yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Now, did you ever give any other papers out, 
to anyone ? 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever give any papers to Rose Yardumian? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I did give a paper to Rose Yardumian, 
again a nongovernmental paper, concerning the Institute of Pacific 
Relations, which — and I refreshed my memory on this — which I be- 
lieve originated with Mr. Ullman, and was handed someone in the 
State Department, who in turn handed it on to me, and since it con- 
cerned the institute, I let Miss Yardumian have a copy for Mr. Carter. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know if she has recently been in Red China ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe she either is in Red China or has been re- 
cently in Red China ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know her sister ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I have met her sister. 

Mr. Morris. What is her first name ? 

Mr. Friedman. Isabel. 

Mr. Morris. Who was she married to ? 

Mr. Friedman. She is now Mrs. Stein, Mrs. Gunther Stein. 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to now take up the investigation 
that the State Department made of leaks or papers going out of the 
Department. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you recall that investigation? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, no sir; because I was never at any time inter- 
rogated by the Department officials on this matter. 

Senator Ferguson. You ;nean to say that papers disappeared out 
of the office of Service and Vincent, and you were an employee there, 
and 

Mr. Friedman. I was one of several employees. 

Senator Ferguson. But you were an employee? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. And that no investigation was ever made by 
the State Department to ascertain how the papers might have got 
to Jaffe and Roth and Service — the papers in the Amerasia case? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. I do not recall any departmental investi- 
gation, but my answer to your question is that I was never at any time 
interrogated by the Department on this matter. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. That is what I am getting at. So, 
as an employee, at the time, and now telling us that you did give infor- 
mation to Roth, you tell us that the State Department never made an 
investigation in that office to your knowledge. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4315 

Mr. Fkiedman. To my knowledge, sir, the Department did not make 
an investigation. 

Senator Ferguson. In other words, tliey did not question you about 
leaks, and you had given a leak in March to Roth. 

Mr. Friedman. Excuse me, sir. That was not a leak. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Call it what you will. I am going to 
use the word "leak." 

Mr. Friedman. I think that fails to describe the situation, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. The record will show. You gave him 
information. 

Mr. Friedman. I gave him information on the history of the Japa- 
nese labor movement. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes, sir. And you had prepared it, and it was 
Government property. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; as I was in the emjjloy of the Government, it 
was Government property. 

Senator Ferguson. Sui-e. And it was in this office, and it was just 
a month or two or three before he was arrested for taking papers or 
having papers that were obtained in the Government. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. And the State Department itself never made an 
investigation, to your knowledge, m that Department ? 

Mr. Friedman. To my knowledge, sir. May I add — — 

Senator Ferguson. All right. But to your knowledge they never 
made an investigation. 

Mr. Friedman. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. At least no one ever came to you and questioned 
you as to how he may have obtained those papers ? 

Mr. Friedman. No one in the Department; no, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. No one in the Department. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Friedman, did you know any correspondents 
for the following publications, anyone in Washington for the follow- 
ing publications : The New Republic ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. I believe after June 1945, I knew Miss 
Helen Fuller of the New Republic. 

Mr. Morris. She Avas the Washington correspondent ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. How frequently did you see Miss Helen Fuller? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't believe I saw her more than two or three 
times between the time I met her and the time I departed for China 
in October 1945. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever have lunch with her ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. I remember having a splendid din- 
ner at the home of Mr. Uhl of PM, who was another correspondent 
whom I knew, and I believe only since June 1945, or around that 
period, perhaps before 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever have lunch with him ? 

Mr. Friedman, I cannot 

Senator Ferguson. Knowing what you do know now, about the 
Amerasia case, are you not amazed that the State Department did 
not make an investigation ? 

Mr. Friedman. I am not saying the State Department did not make 
an investigation, sir. 



4316 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Ferguson. You never knew what they did ? 

Mr. Friedman. I never knew that they made an investigation. 

Senator Ferguson. Does it not seem extremely strange that they 
would not ask you about the disappearance of papers or the fact that 
papers got out of the Government ? 

Mr. P'riedman. Well, sir, I think that perhaps one might answer 
this question with a bit more information. 

Senator Ferguson. Well, can you answer it? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; that at the time of the arrest of the ac- 
cused in the Amerasia case, I believe a number of officials in the 
State Department were interrogated by the agents of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, and at that time I was in San Francisco and 
spent a day or two providing information on the previous period to 
two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I heard nothing 
after these 2 days of interrogation, until I read, in fact in the report 
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the reply of Mr. 
Milton Ladd, the Assistant to the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, who, in reply to a question, "Were there any other 
employees of the State Department involved in the removal of con- 
fidential documents that you know of," Mr. Ladd said, "No, sir." And 
this was after I had a discussion with special agents of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. 

Senator Ferguson. But I mean the State Department itself did 
not come to you and ask. 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Vincent never asked? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you tell Ladd what you had actually give 
toJaffe? 

Mr. Friedman. I did not speak to Ladd, and I did not give anything 
to Jaffe, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Or not Jaffe. To Roth. 

Mr. Friedman. To Roth ? Yes, sir. 

Senator Ferguson, You were not a witness in that case? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. One question, and I will finish my subject. Senator. 

Did you meet the Daily Worker correspondent, Frederick V. Field, 
at the United Nations Conference in San Francisco? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. ' To the best of my recollection that is 
where I met Mr. Frederick Field. It was in the press room of the 
United Nations Conference at San Francisco. 

Mr. Morris. And how long did you speak with him on that occasion ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't have the slightest recollection, but there 
were a number of pressmen there, and Mr. Field was one of them. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I have just two questions, sir. They are both sus- 
ceptible, I think, to very short answers. 

When you came back from Great Britain, in 1951, did you bring 
with you a number of publications of the British Communist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. I brought back from England a number of pablica- 
tions put out by several bodies, most of which were put out by the 
British Government. But also among the publications were those 
of British political parties, including the British Communist Party; 
yes, ^r. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And did you give some of those to Mr. Jaffe ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4317 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. In the summer of 1951, I saw Mr. Jaffe. 
He was interested in the political situation in England. And I made 
available to him a number of these publications. 

Senator Ferguson. The Comnumist publications? 

Mr. Friedman. Communist and non-Communist ; yes, sir, including 
the debates of the House of Commons. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Jaffe was primarily interested in what he 
thought were changes in the Communist line of the British Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Friedman. That was one of the things Mr. Jaffe was interested 
in. He was also interested at that time in the background of the so- 
called Bevanite or Bevanism movement in the British Labor Party. 

Mr. Sourwine. But you knew specifically that he was interested in 
the changes in the Communist line of the British Communist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. Of the British Communist Party ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. And 3'ou gave him these documents because of his 
interest in that connection? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. All right. 

Senator Ferguson. We will recess now until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m., this 
same day.) 

after recess 

Senator Watkins (presiding). The committee will resume session. 
Mr. Morris, have you a witness to be sworn ? 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Friedman has been sworn and we are well into our 
testimony, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. If he has been sworn, then, you may proceed. 

Mr. JMoRRis. At the termination of today's testimony, you stated 
that you had met Frederick Vanderlult Field, who was acting as a 
Daily Worker correspondent at the United Nations Conference in San 
Francisco in 1945. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet Frederick Field on any other occasion 
after that? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe, Mr. Morris, that I met Mr. Field in 1947, 
and I believe at the Connnittee for Democratic Foreign Policy. 

Mr. Morris. On how many occasions did you meet him at the Com- 
mittee for Democratic Foreign Policy? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. I think just one occasion, if I recall 
directly. 

Mr. Morris. You testified earlier that you also met Israel Epstein 
and Fairfax Cholmely at that time. Were they together at that time 
or did you meet them on separate occasions? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that I met them on separate occasions. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever met them together? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, I think I said before that I had been to their 
home. 

Mr. Morris. I mean Field and Epstein. 

Mr. Friedman. Not that I recall ; no, sir. 

Mr. Morris. So your recollection of meeting Field after the United 
Nations Conference at San Francisco was at the Committee for Demo- 
cratic Foreign Policy? 

88348— 52— pt. 12 19 



4318 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; that is what I recall. 

Mr. Morris. Then you also met Epstein and Elsie Fairfax Cholmely 
at the same place but not at the same time as Field ? 

Mr. Friedman. I say I am not sure on that particular point. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did you know Mildred Price? 

Mr. Fried3Ian. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. If you will pardon the interruption, does that mean 
that you do know that you met them at the same place, but you are 
not sure whether it was or Avas not at the same time, speaking now of 
Field and Cholmely ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I have said that I have seen Mr. Field, Mr. 
Epstein, and Miss Cholmely at the same place — that is, the Committee 
for Democratic Foreign Policy. 

Mr. Sourwine. That is right. It is a question of whether that was 
at the same time or different times that you are not clear about. 

Mr. Friedman. I believe at different times. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mildred Price ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, I do know JNIildred Price. 

Mv. Morris. Was she the secretary of the China Aid Council ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you have any dealings with Mildred Price, either 
individually or in the capacity of secretary of the China Aid Coucil? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; I have. 

]Mr. IMoRRis. Will you tell us about them ? 

Mr. Friedman. Surely. If I recall correctly, I met Miss Price in 
New York, January 1945, at a party at the home of Mr. Gunther 
Stein. I am not quite sure about that. But the next time I did see 
her was in China sometime between October 1945 and my departure 
in November of 1946. I don't recall the exact dates of her visit to 
China. She was in China on behalf of the China Aid Council which 
at that time was a section of the United China Relief. I saw Miss 
Price infrequently in China, perhaps once or twice to the best of my 
recollection, since she traveled about the country and at that time I 
was held down at Shanghai. I was particularly interested in one or 
two projects that Miss Price's organization was sponsoring or sup- 
porting and particularly the project of the Yutsai School of Dr. Tao 
Heng Chi. 

Mr. Morris. Wliat was the first one ? 

Mr. Friedman. Tao. 

Mr. Morris. Was there any reason to believe at the time you met 
Miss Price that she was a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; no reason at all. 

Mr. Sourwine. We have a question that has been asked a great 
many others. It is phrased slightly differently. Do you know of any 
reason to believe that Miss Price at any time voluntarily and inten- 
tionally cooperated or collaborated with members of the Communist 
Party for the furtherance of Communist objectives? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not know that she has done so and T do not 
beTieve she has done so. 

Mr. Sourwine. I asked you if you had any reason to believe. 

Mr. Friedman. I have no reason to believe. 

Mr. Morris. You have no reason even now, and in view of the fact 
that when she appeared before this committee and was asked if she 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4319 

was a Communist she refused to answer on the grounds that it might 
incriminate her? You would not consider that to be<i reason? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I would not consider such a constitutional 
answer to the committee to be a reason. 

Mr. Morris. A reason for you to believe that she may have been a 
Communist ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; that would not be a reason. 

]\Ir. Morris. It is not a reason for you to believe that ? 

Mr. Friedman. Exactly. 

Mr. Morris. You say j'ou first met her at a party given by Gunther 
Stein at his home ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know^ Gunther Stein very well? 

Mr. Friedman. I now know Mr. Stein quite well. In the time of 
my employment in the State Department, I think, I may have seen Mr. 
Stein at the most on three or four occasions. I met Mr. Stein, first of 
all, at the Institute of Pacific Relations Conference, Hot Springs, 1945, 
when he was one of the members of the British delegations. I attended 
a party that Mr. Stein gave some time after the conference, in New 
York City, and it is on this occasion that I believe that I met Miss 
Price. 
I Mr. Morris. Have you read the evidence in the charges relating to 
the fact that Gunther Stein was a member of the Sorge espionage ring 
in Japan ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have heard of the charges. I have not read the 
evidence. 
j Mr. Morris. When did you last see ]SIr. Stem ? 

Mr. Friedman. I saw Mr. Stein in London I think in 1950 or the 
, beginning of 1951. I don't recall correctly. He had just come from 
} France and I believe was on his way to Switzerland. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know whether or not he was deported from 
France for espionage? 

Mr. Fried^ian. He was deported from France but I do not know that 
it was for espionage. 

Mr. Morris. Did that enter into your relationship with him at all — 
the fact that yon knew he had been deported from France? 

^Ir. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Who else was at Gunther Stein's house when you met 
Miss Price ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't really recall. 

Mr. Morris. Well, there were more than three people. 

]\Ir. Friedman. There must have been other people, yes, sir, but I 
just don't recall. 

Mr. Morris. Were there people who were frequently in attendance 
at meetings for the Committee for Democratic Foreign Policy? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Talitha Gerlach ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I met Talitha Gerlach. I know her 
name, but I don't think on any occasion I did meet her. 

Mr. Morris. You don't think she was at the party ? 

Mr. Friedman. If she w^ere, I don't recall meeting her. I am almost 
sure that she wasn't. Since I have seen the name many times in 
connection with China Affairs, I am quite sure I have never met her. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet Doctor Ch'ao-ting Chi ? 



4320 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



Mr. Friedman. I liave met Dr. Cirao-ting Chi. 

Mr. Morris. Where did you meet liim? 

Mr, Friedman. I met Dr. Chi, I believe, first of all at the Central 
Bank of China which is alono; the Bund in Shan<i:hai and this would 
be again sometime between October 1945, and November 1046. 

Mr. Morris. What was the occasion of your meeting him there? 

Mr. Friedman. The occasion was to make available some informa- 
tion for the bank's monthly publication and to obtain from his re- 
search staif some information, I believe, on either social insurance 
schemes or wages, labor problems in Swatow, on which his staff was 
working. 

Mr. Morris. Did he ask you to come to the bank or did you volun- 
teer to go to the bank ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. 

Mr. Morris. Did you offer him information before he gave you 
information? You give it in that order, you testified in that order, 
that you gave him some information that he wanted. 

INIr. Friedman. I gave information for the bank publication, yes. 
I don't recall. 

Mr. Morris. "Wliat was the nature? Was that Government official 
information that you gave him? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I do not believe it was. 

Mr. Morris. What was it ? 

Mr. Friedman. I think it was essentially from American labor pub- 
lications. Perhaps, if I am not mistaken, it was from the Monthly 
Labor Review of the Department of Labor, which, I should have 
added, is really a Government publication. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet Dr. Chi on any other occasions? 

Mr. Friedman. I think that I have met Dr. Chi socially but I just 
don't recall. I am sure that I have met him at parties of the Am- 
bassador and of the consul general in Shanghai. 

JNIr. Morris. You do know what he looks like ? 

Mr. Friedman. I think I would have recognized — I know what he 
looked like then ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Do you have eany reason now to believe that he was 
a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I think that his participation as a member 
of the government in Peking might indicate that he is a Communist; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Do you have any reason to believe that he was a Com- 
munist at the time you were giving him information? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I only identified him with Dr. H, H. Kung 
at that time. 

Senator Watkins. Did you know any Communists at all in this 
period of time about which Mr. Morris is inquiring about? 

Mr. Friedman. In China? 

Senator Watkins. Did you know any? 

Mr, Friedman. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Senator Watkins. And yet some of these who have refused to 
answer the question if they are asked if they have ever been a Commu- 
nist or now a Connnunist, they rely on the fifth amendment and say 
it might incriminate them, you don't think that has any bearing on it 
at all, whether or not they are Communists? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4321 

Mr. Friedmax. It may have some, but I just wouldn't venture an 
opinion on the basis of this refusal to answer questions and the reli- 
ance on the fifth amendment. 

Senator Watkins. Now, witli respect to Mildred Price, did she 
advocate any principle or any policies or line of conduct for this 
country that might seem to be going in the same direction as the 
Communist line? 

Mr. Friedman. Certainly not in the period that I have known her; 
no, sir. 

Senator Watkixs. How long haA'e you known her? 

Mr. Friedman. I tliiuk either as far back as January 1945 or per- 
haps sometime between October 194,5 and November 1940, and 1 have 
known her since and am still friendly witli Miss Price. 

Senator Watkins. And you don't think there is anything in her 
conduct that would indicate to you that she was a Communist or that 
she was a fellow traveler. Let us put it that way. 

]\lr. Friedman. Certainly nothing in her conduct in the period I 
have known her would indicate to me that she was a Communist. 
Could 3^oii be more specific on the fellow traveler ? 

Senator Watkins. Well, someone who believes pretty much the 
same and advocates the same line. 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; then she does not fit that category ; not to 
my stipulation. 

Senator Watkins. You have had enough experience with Commu- 
nists to know one when you see one, have you not ? 

Mr. Friedman, I haven't had much experience with them, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. No experience. 

Mr. Friedman. I haven't had much experience. I have met some 
Communists. 

Senator Watkins. Have you ever studied communism? 

Mr. Friedman. I have studied Communist literature, yes, sir. Not 
all of it ; some of it. 

Senator Watkins. I am probably at a disadvantage, I wasn't 
here this morning. What position in the State Department did you 
hold? 

Mr. Friedman. I was in originally what was the Division of Labor 
Kelations, Division of International Health and Labor and Social 
Affairs, from September 1943 until November 1944. and then .subse- 
quently I was in the Chinese Affairs Division, roughly from November 
1944 until October 1945, with a period of assignment to the United 
Nations Conference at San Francisco. And then I was a junior 
economic analyst, serving as the American labor attache in China 
from October 1945 until November 1946. 

Senator Watkins, Was it any part of your job to acquaint yourself 
Avith the conduct of Communists and their policies ? 

Mr. Friedman. Insofar as it had bearing on labor reporting, yes, 
sir. 

Senator Watkins. That would be reporting ? 

Mr. Fried:man. Yes, indeed. But I don't say that I have become 
an expert on the subject. 

Senator Watkins. I don't expect you are an expert, but you 
ought to be able to tell one if you saw one, and talked to him. 

Mr. Friedman. I would have to talk at some length, I presume, to 
get some idea. 



4322 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. What was tlie extent of your acquaintance with Mildred 
Price? 

Mr, Friedman. I have known Miss Price for a considerable period 
of time, and my stipulation is that she was not a Communist, and I 
do not have any reason to believe that she is a Communist. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Solomon Acller? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. I know Solomon Adler. 

Mr. Morris. How well do you know Solomon Adler? 

Mr. Friedman. I would call Solomon Adlev a friend of mine. 

Mr. Morris. AVhen did you last see Solomon Adler ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I saw him in Cambridge, England — it was 
either Cambridge, England, in the late summer of 1951 or it was in 
London — no, excuse me, not the summer of 1951 but 1950, and possibly 
sometime at the end of the -year in 1950 or 1951 when he came to town. 
He is on the staff of Cambridge University. 

Mr. Morris. Do you now have or did you ever have any reason to 
believe that Solomon Adler was a Communist ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; never. 

Mr. Morris. Are you acquainted with the testimony of Chambers 
and Bentley before this committee with respect to Adler ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I believe the name came up. I don't recall 
the testimony. 

Mr. Morris. You have not read the testimony? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; I have gone over the testimony, but I 
don't recall at the moment exactly what they testified. 

Mr. Morris. You mean it isn't of any concern to you whether some 
man you call a friend has been identified before a Senate committee 
by two witnesses as a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. In this particular case of Mr. Adler, I believe he is 
not a Communist and I disregard the testimony of the committee. I 
simply wait until the committee files its reports. 

Senator Watkins. That wouldn't make nuich difference, would it? 
You would rely on the evidence more than you would the report itself. 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I place great weight in the judgment of the 
Senators, Senator. 

Senator Watkins. I am glad to hear you say that. Some people 
don't. 

. Mr. Morris. Did you ever give him any information, any official 
information ? 

Mr. Friedman. Mr, Adler was the Treasury attache of the Embassy, 
and I was the labor attache of the Embassy. I think that we ex- 
changed information on wages, on labor conditions, inflation in China, 
It was part of our official duties, 

Mr. Morris. How frequently did you see Solomon Adler in those 
days? 

Mr. Friedman. I certainly saw him, I think, only once here in 
Washington, D. C., before I went to China, and I couldn't say how 
many times I saw him in China, but I know not too frequently be- 
cause he was in Nanking and I was in Shanghai ; but I must say prob- 
ably four times. 

Mr, Morris. Did you know that he and John Service shared the 
same apartment together, 

Mr, Friedman. Mr. Adler was married in the period I knew him, 
and I believe I have read that in the testimony, some references. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4323 

Mr. Morris. But that was not at the time that you were seeing Mr. 
Adler. 

Mr. Friedman. No. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know a man named Tung Pi-wu? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; I believe Mr. Tung Pi-wu was one of 
the Chinese delegates to the San Francisco conference. 

Mr. Morris. He was a Communist delegate; wasn't he? 

Mr. Friedman. He was a delegate of the National Government of 
China, selected 

Mr. Morris. To represent the Communists in China? 

Mr. Friedman. No sir; he was sent here to represent the Chinese 
Government, and he was nominated by tlie Chinese Communists under 
a plan of General Hurley. 

Mr. Morris. And did you meet him while he was here? 

Mr. Fried^ian. Yes, sir. I met him in San Francisco. 

Mr. Morris, What was the occasion of your meeting him in San 
Francisco ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe in meeting the Chinese delegation. I be- 
lieve actually the time in which I met him was either a Chinese 
luncheon or dinner party which was given by either Mr. Liu Chieh, 
who is now the Chinese Ambassador to Canada, or one of the other 
senior officials of the Chinese Government. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet him in the United States? 

Mr. Friedman. In addition to this occasion ? 

Mr. Morris. Yes ; in addition to this occasion. 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall seeing him again. Yes; I think he 
did pay a courtesy visit to the State Department in Washington while 
he was here, although I don't quite recall the occasion. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet him at a party — at a social party — 
given under the auspices of the Committee for Democratic Foreign 
Policy ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. Could you give me the date ? 

Mr, Morris. No; just if you can recall meeting him there. 

Mr. Friedman. No ; I just don't recall meeting him. 

Mr. Morris. Now, did you ever meet Alger Hiss? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I met Alger Hiss in the State Department. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us about it ? 

Mr. Friedman. I think the first occasion I met Mr. Hiss was — I am 
not quite sure — this was the meeting of the Area Committee on the 
Far East of tlie State Department, of which, I believe, he was a mem- 
ber when I was a member representing the Labor Division of the State 
Department. I can remember, I believe, seeing him — I think, meeting 
him at San Francisco, when he was a secretary general of the confer- 
ence — and I recall being in a committee meeting with him upon my 
return from San Francisco, at which committee meeting the State 
Department was preparing its case or rather making its preparations 
for the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Assembly. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Might I interrupt to clear something up there? 
We found confusion in the records during the testimony of previous 
witnesses about the phrase "Far East" or "Far Eastern Committee." 
I wonder if you would clear up just what committee you were referring 
to there. 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I believe that it would be the same committee 
that Mr. Dooman refers to — that is, the Far East Area Committee of 
the State Department. 



4324 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRWixE. Does that have anything: to do with the Far East 
Committee of SWINK — State, War, Navy Coordinating Committee? 

Mr, Friedmax. I am not sure of the rehitionship between the two. 

Mr. SouRWTNE. Do you know what SWINK was? 

Mr. Friedmax. Yes ; I believe SWINK w\as a State, War, and Navy 
Department committee. 

Mr. Sourwixe. By definition it wasn't. It was the State, War, 
Navy Coordinating Committee. But do you know about the exist- 
ence of that committee ? 

Mr. FRiEDisfAx. Yes ; I have heard of the existence of that committee. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Did you ever have anything to do with any sub- 
committee of SWINK? 

Mr. Friedjian. The only committee that I had something — now, 
I have to clear this up. I was a participant in the State Department's 
Area Committee. 

Mr. Sourwixe. I am trying to get, first, the question of whether 
you had anything to do with any subcommittee of SWINK, any 
subcommittee of the State, War, Navy Coordinating Committee? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, you see, I am just trying — am wondering 
whether you consider the Area Committee a subcommittee. 

Mr. Sourwixe. I am asking you. You were the expert. You were 
the man who was a member of something there. 

Mr. Friedmax. Let me say I was a member of two committees. 

Mr. Sourwixe. You might have been a member of any number 
of committees. I want to know if you were a member of any subcom- 
mittee of SAVINK. Certainly you know Avhether you were or whether 
you weren't. 

Mr. Fried^iax. I wasn't a memljer of any subcommittee that called 
itself a subcommittee of SWINK. So I am not sure of any relation- 
ship between certain State Department committees and SWINK. 

Mr. Sourwixe. You w^ere in Vincent's office for some time? 

Mr. Friedmax. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwixe. You knew that Vincent headed the Far Eastern 
Subcommittee of SWINK? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I believe he became the Chairman of that 
at the time I was prejoaring to depart or had already departed. 
Actually the connnittee of which I was a participant was headed for 
most of the period l)y Mr. Ballentine. Mr. Joseph Ballantine. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Headed by Mr. Ballantine? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Did yon know of Mr. Dooman's position before 
INIr. Vincent became head of the China Division? 

Mr. Friedmax. If I recall, Mr. Dooman was the Special Assistant 
to the Under Secretary of State, that is. Mr. Grew, at that time. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Did vou know that Mr. Dooman headed the Far 
Eastern Committee of SWINK ? 

Mr. Friedmax. Well, I don't recall that, sir. All I know is that 
IVfr. Dooman did not generally })reside at the meeting of the Area 
Committee, that Mr. Ballantine presided and Mv. Dooman would sit 
in. I believe, when Mr. Ballantine Avas not present. 

Mr. Sourwixe. Do you know what the Far East Connnission is? 

Mr. Friedmax. The Far East Connnission located in Washington? 

Ml'. Sourwixe. Do you know what the Far East Commission is? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4325 

Mr. Friedman. There is a Commission in Washington which is 
made up of representatives of the various governments that partici- 
pated in the war against Japan. Is that the Commission to which you 
are referring? 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Is that the Far Eastern Commission 'i Is there any 
other Far Eastern Commission that you know about or Far East 
Commission that you know about? 

Mr. Friedman. Is there not a Commission that existed in Tokyo 
to advise the Supreme Commander which was a Far Eastern Com- 
mission also made up, I believe, of representatives of those nations 
which participated in the war against Japan ? 

Senator Watkins. The committee will suspend for a moment. 
( Short recess. ) 

Senator Watkins. The committee will resume session. 
Mr. SouRwixE. What I am trying to find out is whether while you 
were with the State Department, you were actually a member of any 
of the subcommittees of State, War, and Navy Coordinating Com- 
mittee, speaking specifically of the Far East Subcommittee of State, 
War, and Navy Coordinating Committee? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I was a member of the Area Committee of 
the State Department, which called itself the Area Committee of the 
State Department, and I do not know whether that fits the descrip- 
tion of a Subconnnittee of SWINK. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. You do not know whether the Area Committee was 
or was not a Subcommittee of SWINK ? 
Mr. Friedman. Yes, I do not know. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, do you know of the Subcommittee of SWINK 
which first Mr. Dooman and later Mr. Vincent was Chairman ? 
Mr. Friedman. No, sir, I don't believe I do. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever attend the meetings of any commit- 
tee or subcommittee having to do with the Far East as a Deputy for 
INIr. Vincent or in Mr. Vincent's stead or representing him or his 
office? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I think that I probably attended some meet- 
ings of the State Department's Area Committee on the Far East 
on behalf of the Division of Chinese Affairs. But actually, if I may 
say so, my representation in that Committee was generally for the 
Division of Labor Relations and the Division of International Labor, 
Health, and Social Affairs, pending that Division obtaining some one 
to represent the Division in the Committee. 

Mr. Sourwine. \\niat is the answer to my question, "Yes" or "No"? 
Mr. Friedman. Could you repeat the question? 
Mr, Sourwine. Don't you have the question in mind ? 
Mr. Friedman. No, I haven't. 

Mr. Sourwine. The question was whether you ever attended a 
meeting of a State Department committee or subcommittee having 
to do with the Far East as a deputy to Mr. Vincent or in liis stead or 
representing his Division ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I did represent his Division on some oc- 
casion, yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Before what committee was that ? 
Mr. Friedman. This would be the Area Committee on the Far East 
of the State Department. 



4326 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRWiNE. And do you not know whether that had anything 
to do with S WINK? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; that is correct, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. All right. 

Mr. Morris. While you attended such committee meetings, was there 
any leak of information that came out through the press or through 
the radio that you know of? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall on my own, although having read the 
record I see that Mr. Uooman testifies to that point. 

jNIr. MoREis. Do you know of any ? Do you know whether any news- 
paper or radio programs came out with any news that took place with- 
in the committee hearing room ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir, other than what I have read in your record. 

Mr. Morris. But you know of nothing at the time of your own per- 
sonal knowledge? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, we were asking the witness of his ex- 
periences with Alger Hiss. 

Will you go on ? Is that the only time you saw Mr. Hiss ? 

Mr. Friedman. I think that I was saying that I was a member of a 
committee which was making the preparations for the United States 
(jovernment participation in the forthcoming U. N. meeting. I be- 
lieve that was the only time or the last time I saw Mr. Hiss while I was 
in Government emplo3'ment. 

Mr. Morris. Who recommended you to go out to San Francisco 
in connection with your job out there? 

Mr. Friedman. Actually I was recommended or selected by Dean 
Kobert Stewart, of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. 

Mr. Morris. That is in connection with your assignment as Assist- 
ant Secretary? 

Mr. Friedman. Exactly. Doctor Stewart was at that time work- 
ing with the State Department group making preparations for the 
San Francisco conference. 

Mr. Morris. And he knew you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Knew your work and recommended you? 

Mr. Friedman. He wanted me on the staff and Mr. Vincent made me 
available; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morris. When did you next meet Alger Hiss ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I think that was the last time I met Alger 
Hiss, although subsequent to my departure from the State Department 
and when he was the chairman of the Carnegie Endowment for Inter- 
national Peace, I wrote to Mr. Hiss seeking a fellowship with which 
I could sustain myself while studying abroad. Mr. Hiss replied that 
he was unable to make any provisions of a fellowship for me. 

Mr. Morris. Now, in connection with this arbitration proceeding, 
may I get back to that, you said that you first knew about that case 
by reading the New York press? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that was my original contact with the 
case, was through the press. 

Mr. Morris. Did you read the World-Telegram accounts of those 
hearings ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I read some of them. I don't recall 
specifically. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4327 

Mr. Morris. I offer you the New York World-Telegram, an ex- 
cerpt from the New York World-Telegram, of August 11, 1947, which 
is the announceinent after James Fly announced his decision in that 
case, and ask you if you had read that? Do you mind reading aloud, 
Mr. Friedman ? 

Mr. Friedman. Surely. 

[New York World Telegram, August 11, 1947, p. 6] 

Arbiteator Oedeks Rehiring of Woman Fired as Pro-Red — Secretary Accused 

OF Adhering to the Party Line 

(By Nelson Frank, World-Telegram staff writer) 

In an important arbitration decision, James L. Fly, former Chairman of the 
Federal Communications Commission, after holding that an employee dismissed 
for attempting to insert the Communist Party line into her work "acted im- 
properly" prepared a "biased" reading list, and "deviated" from the policy of 
her employer, nevertheless has ordered the worker returned to her job "with 
the hope for unity." 

At the same time he stated that the National Council of .Jewish Women, the 
employer, need not pay the employee for the 7 months she has lost since being 
dismissed for "malfeasance" last January. 

The worker, Miss Betty Levin, a member of the Social Service Employees 
Union of the United OflSce and I'rofessional Workers (CIO) has been defended 
by the union which hailed Mr. Fly's award as "a signal victory * * * for 
the entire labor movement." 

The arbitration hearing before Mr. Fly lasted for 23 days, a record for any 
labor dispute before any American Arbitration Association member. Mr. Fly's 
award takes 65 printed pages. 

The charges against iMiss Levin, an area secretary assigned to educate the 
sections of the council along the lines of its program were that she consistently 
gave a pro-Soviet view and recommended pro-Soviet or pro-Communist books, 
magazines, and organizations. 

In his decision, Mr. Fly states that the area secretary deviated from the 
council's policy and program in recommending her list of books, organizations, 
and publications in three key cities. Among tlie publications advocated by Miss 
Levin were The Protestant and In Fact, both consistent followers of the Com- 
munist Party line. Books on China were pro-Communist except in one instance 
where a pro-Government book was listed with the notation "a partisan account." 

During the period leading up to the arbitration, said Mr. Fly, "so high did 
the mutual distrust and suspicion mount (in the council's office) that at one 
point a private investigator was hired by the council to guard its files." 

It was at this time that the social service branch of the Communist Party, 
one of whose members is Bernard Segal, executive director of the union 

Mr. ]SIoRRis. Excuse me. Notice how that particular reporter de- 
scribes Bernard Segal. 
Mr. Fried:man (reading) : 

One of whose members is Bernard Segal, executive director of the union. 

Mr, Morris. Read the full paragraph. 
Mr. Friedman (reading) : 

It was at this time that the social-service branch of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Morris. "Of the Communist Party " 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Morris. Go ahead. 
Mr. Friedman (reading) : 

One of whose members is Bernard Segal, executive director of the union, 
called the case a te.st case to determine whether a progressive * * * may 
be Red-baited out of a job. 

Among the organizations recommended by Miss Levin were People's Songs, 
a group which writes the Communist May Day tunes, the Council on African 



4328 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Aflfiiirs, and China Aid Council, both well-known Communist fronts, and the 
National Council of American Soviet Friendship, key pro-Soviet propaganda 
outfit in this country. Also recommended by her was the Communist front, 
National Committee to AVin the Pe;iee. It was of this organization that Mr. 
Fly accused her of acting "improperly * * * (in that) her response to 
the Chicago section was designed to encourage cooperation * * *'' with 
this committee. 

However, because she was not previously warned that her actions were against 
the council's policy, he has ordered her reinstated. 

Mr. Morris. Is that one of the articles you had read in the New 
York Press ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall, Mr. Morris. This would be August 
1947. I don't recall whether I read this specific article. 

Mr. Morris. You were in New York at that time, were you not? 

Mr. Friedman. Let me think. I believe I was ; but I am not sure, 

Mr. Morris. You will notice that that particular news article pre- 
sents the problem in rather a different light from what you have 
testified here. 

Mr. Friedman. I have presented the problem in the light of the 
arbitrator's statements of it, yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did you have high marks at Harvard? The reason 
I ask that, Mr. Chairman, is that a witness who has given some testi- 
mony before this committee has testified that the person she was 
talking about was a person who had gotten high marks at Harvard. 
So that is why that question is appropriate. 

Mr. Friedman. May I read that section just from the report of the 
committee, Mr. Chairman? It is just a sentence or two, and then I 
can reply fully to it. 

Senator Watkins. I don't see any objection to that. 

Mr. Friedman. Thank you. This is Mrs. Widener, speaking on 
page 758 of the committee's hearings, part 3. 

Senator Watkins. This committee? 

Mr. Friedman. This committee; yes, sir [reading] : 

Prior to Mr. Friedman's arrival, Mr. Andrews had told me that Mr. Friedman 
had graduated with the highest honors from Hai-vard University. I believe 
he graduated with either magna or summa cum laude. 

Mr. Chairman, I perhaps hate to admit this to the committee but I 
did not graduate either magna cum laude or summa cum laude or cum 
laude at Harvard, although the marks that I had were considered 
Dean's highest marks but not honor marks at Harvard University. 
And I believe that I could introduce, if the committee wanted it in 
its record, the Harvard indication that I was not an honor candidate 
at that time. 

Senator Watkins. But you are sure that if you had received such 
honors you would be likely to claim them rather than deny them. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MoRRTS. Can you recall attending a meeting in Shanghai at 
which the following people were present : Rose 1 ardumian, Mary 
Barrett, Gerald Tannenbaum, Dorothy Campbell ? Those individuals 
or any combinations of them ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't really recall attending any meeting xnth. 
those individuals together. 

Mr. Morris. This meeting was held at the Hamilton House, room 
812, just before Christmas of 1946. 

Mr. Friedman. Then I don't recall such a meeting. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4329 

Mr. Morris. You do not recall such a meeting ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever attend a meeting in Shanghai at which 
Rose Yardumian was present? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I have attended a meeting in Shanghai of 
tlie International Committee of the Chinese Industrial Cooperative at 
which Miss Yardumian was present and I attended as an observer 
from the United States State Department. 

Mr. Morris. Were not Mary Barrett, Gerald Tannenbaum, and 
Dorothy Campbell also active in that organization? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think so. Certainly not Mr. Tannenbaum 
who is not in that organization, nor Miss Barrett whom I believe, again 
I am not sure, was at that time employed by the United States Foreign 
Service. The name Dorothy Campbell doesn't come back to me at all. 

Mr. Morris. Did von invite to attend a meetino- of the Chinese in- 
dustrial cooperatiA'es another labor attache from the State Depart- 
ment ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that, Mr. Morris. "When you say an- 
other attache of the State Department, you mean in China? 

Mr. Morris. In China. 

Mr. Friedman. There was no other labor attache. 

Mr. Morris. Who was your successor ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall whether I had a successor or not. I 
don't believe the Department did formally succeed me. I don't Icnow 
if any one subsequent to my departure carried on the labor-reporting 
program. 

Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony that there was not another labor 
attache present at that time in China from the State Department? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; as far as I know, there was no other labor 
attache from the State Department in China at the time I was present. 

Mr. IMoRRis. Is it your testimony that you did not invite any other 
labor attache to attend a meeting at which these people were present ? 

Mr. Friedman. I certainly don't recall the meeting. I certainly 
don't recall meeting with such persons present. I don't recall inviting 
another labor attache to such a meeting. 

Mr. ]\[oRRis. Do you ever remember telling another labor attache of 
the State Department that you were a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. May I say perhaps two "No, sirs," to that 
question. That is, I do not remember telling any labor attache, and 
I am sure that I did not tell any labor attache that I was a Communist, 
because I was not a Communist. 

Senator Watkins. At that or any other time ? 

Mr. Friedman. At that or any other time. 

Mr. Morris. The issue, Mr, Chairman, is whether or not this wit- 
ness told a labor attache in Shanghai at that time whether or not he 
was a Communist. 

Do you know a man named Willis E. Etter ? 

Mr. Friedman. Willis E. Etter? I don't recall the name unless — 
was he a member of the American consulate general in Shanghai ? 

Mr. Morris. I believe he was. 

Mr. Friedsian. Yes, sir, I believe I do remember that name, but he 
certainly was not the labor attache in my tenure of office. If I recall 
Mr. Etter worked in the consular section or the shipping section of 



4330 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

the consulate, but certainly not in any labor attache section while I 
was there. May I, Mr. IMorris, introduce 

Mr. Morris. Wait until I finish these questions. Did you ever meet 
Lauchlin Currie ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. I did not meet Lauchlin Currie. 

Mr. INIoRRis. Did you ever meet John K. Fairbank and his wife, 
Wilma Fairbank ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; I know the Fairbanks very well indeed. 

Mr. IMoRRis. When did you last see the Fairbanks ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I saw the Fairbanks in the autumn of 1951 
at their home in Cambridge, Mass. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet the Fairbanks in China ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I met the Fairbanks in China. 

Mr. Morris. Did you see them frequently in China ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, not too frequently, because Mr. Fairbank was 
mainly in Nanking while I was in Shanghai, and Mrs. Fairbank did 
a good deal of traveling for the Cultural Office of the Embassy. 

Mr. Morris. What was her position ? 

Mr. Friedman. She was the cultural officer for the United States 
Embassy. 

Mr. INloRRis. She was there in China ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; I believe she was there for part of the time 
the Marshall mission was there. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet Mr. Benjamin Kizer? Do you 
know him well ? 

Mr. Friedman. Not very well, sir, 

Mr. Morris. When did you last see Mr. Kizer ? 

Mr. Friedman. When did I see Mr. Kizer? I believe I saw Mr. 
Kizer in Shanghai in the end of 1945 or the beginning of 1946, but 
I don't think I have seen him since. I have seen members of his 
family since that time. 

Mr. Morris. What was his position during the war? Was he the 
head of the China Division of UNRRA ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. I recall Mr. Kizer when he was the 
Director of UNRRA for the China operation. 

Mr. Morris. That is what I meant, 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; he was for some time its Director. 

Mr. Morris. What were his duties, do you know, at that time ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I do not know. 

Mr. Morris. You do not know what his duties were ? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not know what his duties were. 

Mr. Morris. Are you acquainted with the Stilwell dispute ? I mean 
the dispute that arose over the dismissal of General Stilwell. 

Mr. Friedman. Dispute between whom ? 

Mr. Morris. There was a general controversy. There was a con- 
troversy that took place in many of the newspapers at the time, 

Mr. Friedman. I can remember in particular Mr. Brooks Atkin- 
son's famous New York Times story on that. 

Mr. Morris. Mr, Brooks Atkinson opposed the removal of Stilwell, 
did he not ? 

Mr, Friedman. I don't recall at the moment. 

Mr. Morris. You said you recalled Brooks Atkinson. 

Mr. Friedman. I just recall the article because of its importance. 
I presume, if -I may, that probably Mr. Atkinson— you see, I would 



ESrSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4331 

like to say definitely by looking at tlie article, but I believe tliat he was 
generally opposed to the removal of General Stilwell. 

Mr. ]\ioRRis. Did you favor the removal of General Stilwell? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't quite recall exactly what position I took at 
that time, but I certainly now, having gone back over the period, do 
favor the recall of General Stilwell. And I probably, if I may put 
it in terms of probability, favored his recall at that time, because I 
did, in a sense, admire much of the work that General Hurley was 
doing in the Middle East and in the Far East in that period of time. 

Mr. ISIoRRis. Do you know that the Daily Worker took issue with 
Brooks Atkinson in his opposition to the removal of Stilwell? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't know anything about that; no, sir. 

Mr. Morris. The reason I asked that was that you are acquainted 
with the episode in connection with the Atkinson article, and it was 
the Atkinson article with which the Daily Worker took issue. 

Mr. Friedman. But I know that as a reader of the New York Times, 
and not of the Daily Worker. 

Mr. Morris. But you did favor the removal of Stilwell? 

Mr. Friedman. I am saying now that I probal)ly did favor the re- 
moval of Stilwell, simply because he was a man who would not get 
along with the government with which he was at the time. My opinion 
is further confirmed by Earl Mountbatten's reports when he describes 
his great difficulties with General Stilwell, plus General Stilwell's own 
book, which is not altogetlier diplomatic, either in its words or its 
tone. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever visit Owen Lattimore at his home? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I have been at the home of Owen Lattimore. 

Mr. Morris. ^Y[mt was the occasion ? 

Mr. Friedman. The only occasion that I recall, Mr. Morris, is an 
invitation to lecture at his seminar at Johns Hopkins. This was in 
the early — it must have been either February or March of 1947, after 
I had left the Government service. And I remember either staying 
with the Lattimores just before the seminar or just after the seminar, 
before proceeding to Washington, where I spent the night at the home 
of the Lattimores. 

Mr. Morris. In connection with Alger Hiss, did you ever write to 
Alger Hiss in connection with his trials ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, I don't recall specifically on that. I think it is 
possible that I may have written him at the very beginning of his 
troubles a letter of sympathy or lamentation. But I don't recall this 
definitely, and I haven't found any such letter among my own papers 
or a copy of any such letter among my own papers. 

Senator Watkins. Were you in the habit of keeping copies of your 
letters? 

Mr. Friedman. Not everything, Senator. I think that if I did at 
the time, it was because of his negative but nevertheless kind response 
from the Carnegie Endowment to which I had written for a fellow- 
ship. 

Senator Watkins. In other words, he acknowledged your letter, 
but did not do anything for you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Pardon me? 

Senator Watkins. He acknowledged your letter but he did not do 
anything for you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Exactly. 



4332 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Watkins. So you felt kindly about that? 

Mr. Friedman. Well 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mark Gayn ? 

]\rr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I have knoAvn Mr. Mark Gayn. 

Mr. Morris. When did you first meet INIark Gayn? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I met Mr. Mark Gayn at a party of Mr. 
Gunther Stein in January or February 1945, to which we have already 
referred. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever give him any State Department official 
information? 

Mr. Friedman. Xo, sir, I did not. 

Mr. Morris. You gave him no information and no pai^ers of any 
kind? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Morris, might I inquire at that point very 
briefly? 

I show you, sir, fixe lines, typewritten. I ask j^ou if you have ever 
seen documents with that statement or inscription written or im- 
printed upon them ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir; I believe I have seen some documents. I 
couldn't vouch for the title, sections, and so forth, but I believe some- 
thing of this nature. 

Mr. Sourwine. It is generally familiar to you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

INIr. Sourwine. Have you seen it on documents in the State 
Department ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall so much, because the State Depart- 
ment's classification system in the period I was there tended to be 
either nothing at all or "restricted'' or "secret," with a simple stamp 
rather than with this. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Then your testimony is that you do not remember 
having seen this on documents ? 

Mr. Friedman. On State Department documents as distinguished 
from any documents that may have come in to the State Department 
from any other agency. 

Mr. Sourwine. This note reads : 

Warning. This material contains information affecting the national defense 
of the United States within the meaning of the espionage law, title XVIII, 
U. S. C, titles 79.3 and 794, the transmission or revelation of which in any manner 
to an nnauthorized person in any manner is prohibited by law. 

JVIr. Friedman, did you ever give to any unauthorized person any 
documents bearing this stamp or imprint? 

Mr. Friedman. I certainly believe not, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever give to any unauthorized person any 
documents bearing any stamp or imprint indicating them to be 
classified? 

Mr. Friedman. Certainly within the State Department 

Mr. SouRwaNE. Don't limit the question, sir. Answer it "Yes" 
or "No." 

INIr. Friedman. I do not believe so. 

Senator Watkins. Do you have any hesitation in answering that? 
in fact, you indicate by your manner that you do have some doubt. 

Mr. Friedman. No. Tliis morning we discussed a matter, Senator, 
and that was the matter of some notes to ]Mr. Andrew Roth, notes on 
the history of the Japanese labor movement which I prepared. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4333 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Were they classified matter? 

Mr. Friedman. May I finish, Mr. Sourwine? 

INIr. Sourwine. Were they classified matter ? 

Mr. Friedman. These notes, to the best of my recollection, at the 
time I had it, were not classified. 

Mr. Sourwine. Then they do not affect your answer to this question, 
do they ? 

Senator Watkins. There is not any doubt in 3'our mind as to 
whether they were classified ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. The reason I raise the question is that 
T think, in the final preparation of the paper, that these notes may 
have played a part in the background section, and that is why I 
want to be quite specific and frank with the committee. This is a 
matter which was mentioned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
at the time of the Amerasia affair, and I believe that the notes, as I 
gave them to Mr. Roth, were quite unclassified. But they were his- 
torical background material from published sources. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you mean that those notes subsequently be- 
came a part of classified material ? 

jVIr. Friedman. I am not sure of what the history of the docu- 
ments was, that is, any final document. But these are notes which 
I was working up, and which were used in connection with a paper 
on Japanese labor. 

Mr. Sourwine. Now, I would like to get back to the question I 
asked earlier. Did you ever give any unauthorized person docu- 
ments bearing a stamp or imprint indicating they were classified? 

Mr. Friedman. I do not believe so, no, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. That answer indicates that you think there is a 
chance that you might have. 

Mr. Friedman. This is some years ago, sir, and many papers have 
passed over my desk, and I should like to leave the answer, "I do 
not believe I have ever given any person classified material." 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you mean by that that there is some doubt in 
your mind ? 

]\Ir. Friedman. No, sir. I want to be on the cautious side. 

Senator Watkins. You would not answer categorically, "No," that 
you did not, because you think there is a possibility that you might 
have done so ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think there is a possibility. 

Senator Watkins. Wh}^ do you not say there is not any possibility ? 

Mr. Friedman. I would like to leave the answer as it stands. Sena- 
tor, if I may. 

Mr. Souravine. ]Mr. Friedman, did you ever see a report on the 
subject of the need of an American policy toward the problems created 
by the rise of the Chinese Communist Party, a report indicating that 
the Communists were about one-fifth of the population, and that they 
were going to have a definite influence on the future of China? 

JNIr. Friedman. I don't recall that report. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever see a report on the subject of the 
growth of the new Fourth Army, an example of the popular demo- 
cratic appeal of the Chinese Communists, indicating that the popular 
support of the Chinese Communists shows their policies and methods 
are democratic ? 

88348— 52— pt. 12 20 



4334 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. Again, I don't recall offhand such reports. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you recall having seen a document entitled, 
"The Views of Mao Tse-tung, America and China," dated March 
1945? 

Mr. Friedman. Again, I just don't recall offhand. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Do you know that those papers were circulated 
through your division at the time you were a divisional assistant? 

Mr. Friedman. I say I don't recall the document, so I don't know 
whether they were circulated through the division. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Do you know that all three of those documents men- 
tioned were among the so-called Amerasia papers? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir, I do not know that. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. All right. 

Mr. ]\IoRRis. Mr. Friedman, have you ever knowingly associated with 
people you knew to be Communists ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Morris. On what occasions ? 

Mr. Friedman. On social occasions only. Certainly not on political 
occasions. 

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the extent to which you have done 
that? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, it is not very frequently. In this country, 
in England or France when we traveled about, we have met people 

Mr. Morris. Wlien you say "we," who do you mean ? 

Mr. Friedman. In lecent years, my wife and I. And we have been 
in homes of persons who were known to us to be Communists; yes, 
sir. But this is not in the period of the State Department, but post- 
period. 

Mr. Morris. Who were those people you knew to be Communists? 

Mr. Friedman. I think the one name I mention is a Mr. John Horner 
of Great Britain. 

Mr. Morris. Why do you say the one that you could name ? 

Mr. Friedman. I say one whose name comes to me, because it was 
within the last year or so, I should say within the last year and a half, 
when we were in England. 

]\Ir. Morris. Tell me this, Mr. Friedman : If you were now in the 
State Department — this is a hypothetical question — would you give 
information as you have in the jiast, say, to Y. Y. Hsu, and to Rose 
Yardumian, and to — who was the other one 3'ou mentioned? Just 
take those two. Would you now give such information to Gunther 
Stein? 

Mr. Friedman. I would rather not answer a hj-pothetical question 
of that sort, Senator. Is is so open to 

Senator Watkins. That reveals your ])resent state of mind. It 
may have some bearing on j^our answers that you have given in the 
past. 

Mr. Friedman. I think the answer is quite simple: That I would 
follow all of the rules and regulations of the State Department with 
reference to the circulation of materials which is governmental and 
State Department material. 

Mr. Morris. And you would impose no higher standard than tiiat 
on yourself? 

Mr. Friedman. I would follow the rules of the Department by 
which I was employed ; yes, sir. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4335 

Mr. Morris. Suppose you knew that a Communist wanted some 
particular information for a purpose to further the Communist con- 
spiracy in the world, and he came to you and asked you for that infor- 
mation. If there were no State Department prohibition against it, 
would you give it to him ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. I would report it to my senior official. 

Mr. Morris. Did you so report as to Y. Y. Hsu, when you gave him 
a map that he wanted ? 

Mr. Friedman. Pardon me? 

Mr. Morris. Did you report to your official in the State Depart- 
ment the fact that Y. Y. Hsu wanted a map from you ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that I did. I am almost sure that 
I discussed the matter with a Mr. Chase, but I take full responsibility. 

Mr. Morris. And he gave you permission ? 

Mr. Friedman. It wasn't a question of permission. It was a ques- 
tion of an unrestricted map on the liberated areas of China. It was 
for JNIr. Hsu's book, copies of which came to the State Department 
shortly afterward. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. Knowing what you know about Mr. Hsu now, do you 
think that his motive in obtaining that map was completely hann- 
less? 

Mr. Friedman. At that particular time, it was harmless. It was 
for publication, and was published subsequently. 

Mr. Morris. I mean, clo you concede now that Y. Y. Hsu was a 
Communist? 

]\Ir. Friedman. No, sir. I just don't know anything about that. 
I believe we have said that he is in Peking, and I presume that he is. 
But other than that, I couldn't say any further, on the basis of my 
own knowledge of Mr. Hsu. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Mr. Friedman, have you ever seen or read the Com- 
munist Manifesto by Marx and Engels? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I have read the Communist Manifesto by 
Marx and Engels. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Have you ever read State and Revolution by Lenin ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I have, Mr. Sourwine. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know what that book is ? 

Mr. Friedman. No. That is one of the reasons I don't think I read 
it, because I couldn't say what the contents are. 

Mr. SouRw^iNE. Have you ever read Left AVing Communism and In- 
fantile Disorder by Lenin ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, indeed ; I have read that. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you read Foundations of Leninism by Stalin ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have read, I think, a part of that book. In fact, 
I haven't read that, because it was a matter m which I was looking 
into quite recently. 

]Mr. SouRw^iNE. What do j^ou mean, "looking into''? You were 
looking into the book, or looking into the matter of whether you had 
read it? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir, into the book itself. 

Mr. Sourwine. You would say you have been exposed to it, but 
didn't catch it ? 

Mr. Friedman. No. As I say, I am pretty sure that I have not read 
that book. 

Mr. Sourwine. You mean you dipped into it? 



4336 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Friedman. Xo. I haven't gotten it yet. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. ^Yi\i\t did you mean when you said yon were look- 
ing into it ? Do you mean you have ordered it ? 

Jklr. Friedman. No, I haven't ordered it yet, either, but I was going 
to read it sometime in the course of the year. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Who recommended that book to you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Nobody in particuLar. 

Mr. SouRWiNE. Did you ever read History of the Communist Party 
of the Soviet Union, authored by the central committee of the Com- 
munist Party ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir, I have never read that. 

Mr. Soi'RwiNE. Did you ever read, Program of the Communist 
International and its Constitution, the third American edition? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I have; no, sir. 

Mr. SouRW^iNE. Any edition ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall. I don't think so. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you ever read The Revolutionary Movement in 
the Colonies and Semi-Colonies, a thesis of the Sixth World Congress 
of the Comintern ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; that, I believe, I have read. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Would you tell us, sir, something of the circum- 
stances under which you read those books to the reading of which 
you have just testified? 

Mr. Friedman. I just don't recall the circumstances. 

Mr. SouRW^NE. Did you perhaps read them because you felt they 
were necessary or desirable as background for your work ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I would say that I have read those books 
because 1 thought that some of them were necessary as part of the 
literature of an educated man. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You did not feel that any of them were necessary 
in connection with your work in the State Department? 

Mr. Friedman. Absolutely not; no, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you read any of them in connection with study 
groups, with others? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I don't think I have ever been in the study 
group of the type I believe you are referring to. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You read all of these books on your own initiative? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I believe so. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. No one I'ecommended them to you? 

Mr. Friedman. Not that I recall, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Anthony Jenkinson at any time? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I don't believe I have ever met Mr. Jenkin- 
son. I can identify the name, I think, with the Allied Labor News. 

Mr. Morris. That is the one; yes. Your testimony is that you have 
never met him? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I ever met him. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know that he is an Englishman? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe it is Jenkinson ; yes. I have heard that he 
was an Englishman. 

Mr. Morris. You did not see him on your trip to London? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Michael Lindsay? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4337 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet him ? 
Mr. Friedmax. Yes, sir. 

Mr. jMorris. Wlien was the hist you met Michael Lindsay? 

Mr. Friedm vn. I think I met Lindsay, Michael Lindsay, sometime in 
London in the last 2 years, I believe prior to his departure as a research 
scholar for a university. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet him in the United States? 

Mr. Frjedman. Yes, sir ; at Harvard University in 1947. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever meet him at the Committee for Democratic 
Far Eastern Policy ? 

Mr. Friedmax. I don't recall. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know his wife ? 

]Mr. Friedman. I have met his Avife; yes, sir. 

Mr. jNIorris. Who was his wife ? 

Mr. Friedman. ]\Irs. Lindsay. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know her before she married him? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Agnes Smedley at any time? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, I met Miss Smedley. 

Mr. Morris. Where did you meet Miss Smedley ? 

Mr. Friedman. When did I meet Miss Smedley ? I met Miss Smed- 
ley sometime in 1047 after I left the State Department. I shouldn't 
be surprised if I didn't meet Miss Smedley at the office of the China 
Aid Council or the home of Miss Mildred Price. 

Mr. Morris. Were they closely associated ? 

Mr. Friedman. I think thej^ were quite friendly, yes, sir. 

Mr. IMorris. Was Miss Smedley active in the Committee for Dem- 
ocratic Far Eastern Policy? 

Mr. Friedman. I wouldn't know, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet Miss Smedley when she was in London? 

Mr, Friedman. Yes, I saw Miss Smedley in London. 

Mr. Morris. What was the occasion of that ? 

Mr. Friedman. I was invited to an occasion by Lady Scly wyn Clark, 
whose husband was the British g-overnor of the Seychelles Islands 
and was a very eminent and distinguished medical officer of Hong 
Kong. 

Mr. Morris. What was the circumstances ? 

Mr. Friedman. It was just a social occasion. 

Mr. Morris. Were any of these other people you have been discuss- 
ing today present at that party ? 

^Ir. Friedman. Just my wife present in addition to Miss Smedley 
and Miss Clark. 

Mr. Morris. How many times did you see Miss Smedley in Eng- 
land? 

Mr. Friedman. I am sure not more than twice. 

Mr. Morris. Did you see her at about the time that she died? 

Mr. Friedman. Just before, I believe. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know anything about the circumstances sur- 
rounding her death? 

]\Ir. Fried3ian. No, I do not. 

Mr. Morris. Did you read about the circumstances? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, I have read about the death, but I don't know 
any of the circumstances. 



4338 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Morris. You could not tell this committee about any of the 
details suiTounding the death? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. INIoRRis. You did read her will in the papers, did you not ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, I believe I have. I am not quite sure. I have 
seen references to it if I haven't actually read the will in the paper. 

Mr. Morris. You do know that she willed the property to Chuh 
Teh, the Chinese Communist general ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Did that surprise you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Not at all. 

Mr. Morris. In fact, that was consistent to the person Agnes 
Smedley ? 

Mr. Friedman. I know she had the greatest admiration for General 
Teh, about whom she was writing an autobiography. 

Mr. Morris, Did you ever meet Anna Louise Strong? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I have met Anna Louise Strong. 

Mr. Morris. A^Hiere did you meet her ? 

Mr. Friedman. I met her in Shanghai in 1946, I believe. She 
came to me and was introduced to me because she was interested in 
Chinese labor problems, and I was the American labor attache to 
whom many Chinese even turned for explanation of the Chinese labor 
scene. 

Mr. Morris. Did you turn to her for explanation of the Chinese 
labor scene ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Where else did you see Anna Louise Strong? 

Mr. Friedman. This is the only period. 

IVIr. Morris. Did you see her in the United States ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, I have never seen her in the United States. 
No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Victor Yakhontoff ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir, I don't believe I have ever. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever met him ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know who he is ? 

Mr. Friedman. The author of Chinese Soviet; is that the one to 
whom you are referring ? 

Mr. Morris. I believe that is the same man, yes. 

Mr. FriedMjVn. I don't know him. I have never met him. 

Mr. Morris. Do you know Michael Greenberg? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't know him. 

Mr. Morris. You did not see him in England ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. He is there now ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't know. His book has just been published. 

Mr. Morris. From London? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. 

Mr. Morris. Are you acquainted with the testimony before this 
committee about the Communist associations of Michael Greenberg? 

Mr. Friedman. Not specifically. I am sure I have read them. 

Mr. Morris. Have you testimony to believe that Michael Green- 
berg is or was a Communist ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4339 

Mr. Fried3ian. I don't know. I just don't know the man. 

Mr. Morris. Have you ever met the Snows, the Edg-ar Snows? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; I believe Mr. Edgar Snow and the person, 
Mrs. Snow, the writer Nym Wales. I don't recall the occasion for 
meeting Eclgar Snow, unless it was at the State Department. I re- 
member meeting Mrs. Snow, Nym Wales, at the San Francisco Con- 
ference, United Nations Conference. 

]\Ir. Morris. In what capacity was she there ? 

JNIr. Friedman. I don't recall, sir. 

INIr. Morris. Was slie in the press room or one of the official rooms? 

Mr. Friedman. I just don't recall. 

Mr. Morris. She was there? 

Mr. Fried3Ian. Yes; I am pretty sure she was. 

Mr. Morris. And yon say you thought you met Edgar Snow in the 
State Department ? 

Mr. Friedman. As I say, I don't recall the circumstances. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Dolly Eltenton ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't believe I did; no, sir. I don't know the 
name. 

Mr. Morris. You don't know the name? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Morris. Did yon know Chen Han-seng? 

Mr. Fried3»ian. Chen Han-seng. 

Mr. Morris. In what capacity did you meet Dr. Chen Han-seng? 

Mr. Friedman. I Ijelieve I met Dr. Chen in his capacity as a re- 
search scholar at Johns Hopkins University, and I met Dr. Chen in 
New York, I think, at the Committee for Democratic Far Eastern 
Policy. I believe that is where I saw him in New York. 

Mr. Morris. Did you know Mr. Bisson, who was a witness here 
yesterday? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I know Mr. Bisson. 

Mr. Morris. Did you meet him in connection with the Committee 
for Democratic Far Eastern Policy? 

Mr. Fried3Ian. No, sir; I believe I met Mr. and Mrs. Bisson at the 
Institute of Pacific Relations conference in Hot Springs. I don't 
recall seeing Mr. Bisson, I don't think, even in 1947 when I was back 
in America, and I have seen him recently where he is a colleague of 
mine at the University of California. 

Mr. SouRwaNE, Could I interrupt? 

Do yon remember testifying with regard to your duties while you 
were divisional assistant under Mr. Vincent ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember testifying that material coming 
into the office reached your desk after it had gone over the desk of 
Mr. Vincent or the assistant chief of the division ? 

Mv. Friedman. Yes ; I suggested I was down at the bottom of the 
routing list. 

Mr. SoTjRwiNE. And the exception to that, I believe you stated, was 
when Mr. Vincent would give you something directly. 

Mr, Friedman. Yes. Well, that was still routing. 

Mr. Sourwine. Is it true that you had a number of specific duties 
while you were in jNIr. Vincent's office ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, specifically in the sense of writing memo- 
randa ; yes, sir. 



4340 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You did write memoranda? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr, SouRWiNE. For Mr. Vincent? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And you summarized dispatches on occasion? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I believe I did. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And you did prepare correspondence for his signa- 
ture on occasion ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; I believe I did that, too. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. And you sometimes initiated reports or communi- 
cations which sometimes involved ])olicy. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes; I think it is a fair statement. 

Mr. SouRW^iNE. I have been attempting to cut through what took us 
several pages in executive session, and I do not want to put words 
in your mouth if that is not a fair statement. 

Mr. Friedman. I believe that some of the memos or writings may 
be considered policy matters, but at my level they were not policy. 

Mr. SouR^VINE. No; but you said you did sometimes initiate memo- 
randa and they subsequently became policy? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you have anything to do with drafting any doc- 
uments which subsequently or ultimately received the signature of the 
President of the United States. 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall clearly. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I will give you an example. Mr. Vincent testified 
that certain documents had been prepared in his office and that persons 
in his office had worked on them, which ultimately became a part of 
the directive to General Marshall. Did you work on any of those doc- 
uments ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I don't believe I have ever worked on what 
would be the preparatory material for General Marshall. 

INIr. SouRwiNE. There was a document, a letter or communication, 
from President Roosevelt to President Chiang Kai-shek under date of 
July 14, 1944, which appears at page 560 of the so-called white paper 
of the State Department. 

Can you tell me whether you had anything to do with the drafting 
of that or a paper preliminary to it ? 

Mr. Friedman. Would you repeat the date, please? 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I will be glad to show it to you in the white paper — 
the one on the left-hand page there [handing document]. 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; this was before I was a member of Mr. Vin- 
cent's division. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. You were with the State Department, but before you 
were a member of the division? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRW^NE. In that category of papers, did you ever, to your 
knowledge, prepare a memorandum for inclusion in, or what ultimate- 
ly became, a paper or document for the signature of the Secretary of 
State? 

Mr Friedman. I just don't recall. Again, if you could be spe- 
cific 

Mr. Sourwine. If you had prepared a document which was subse- 
quently signed by the Secretary of State, you would be very likely to 
remember it, would you not? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4341 

Mr. Friedman. Not necessarily, because I might not know that it 
liad become a document. 

i\Ir. SouRwiNE. Wei], if you knew about it. 

Mr. Friedmax. Yes, sir ; I probably would remember it. 

Mr. Sour WINE. We all follow our brain children. 

Mr. Friedman. Some of us have pride of authorship; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you exclude yourself? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr, Sourwine. So that if you had written something which sub- 
stantially, in the form in which you wrote it, was ultimately signed 
by the Secretary, you would have known that, would you not? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you have any knowledge of that happening ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall; no, sir. 

INIr. Sourwine. Turning to another question, do vou know Georgi 
Dimitroff? 

Mr. Friedman. Would you repeat that? 

Mr. Sourwine. Georgi Dimitroff. 

Mr. Friedman. Could you identify him for me ? 

Mr. Sourwine. I am asking you if you know him. 

Mr. Friedman. I don't believe I know anyone by that name. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know that a man of that name was head 
of the Communist International? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes ; now I know of whom you are speaking. 

Mr. Sourwine. You do place that Georgi Dimitroff? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever know him ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever read any of his writings? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think so. 

Mr. Sourwine. I have no more questions. 

Mr. Friedman. May I at this point introduce a number of docu- 
ments which I think fit appropriately in the record of the committee? 

Senator Watkins. I would say that if you want to submit them to 
the connnittee that we do not allow the promiscuous introduction of 
any documents. You see, your testimony is supposed to be sworn to 
here. If you want to leave them with the committee, we will have our 
staff check them, and we will make the ruling later as to whether they 
will be admitted as a part of the record. 

Mr. Friedman. Perhaps if I may take a moment of your record to 
get further guidance on this point. 

In the record, the printed testimony of Mi-s. Widener, there is a 
statement, there is a letter, from Mr. Durbrow of the State Depart- 
ment to this committee, explaining that I was terminated from the 
State Department without prejudice, and, first of all. Mr. Morris, in 
summarizing the letter at one point, substituted — and I am sure in- 
advertently — "dismissed" for "terminated." 

Senator Watkins. What is the difference? 

Mr. Friedisian. The difference is, sir. that the phrase "termination 
without prejudice" is the equivalent of an honorable discharge, and 
that the term "dismissed" suggests something very uncomplimentary. 

Senator Watkins. I just wanted that for the purpose of the record. 

Mr. Friedman. I should like to submit into the record, to correct 
this inadvertency, the copies of my retirement papers or termination 



4342 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

papers, and a subsequent letter from the State Department to me ex- 
plaining the meaning of the term "without prejudice." 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Could you offer those one by one, identify them, and 
let the Chair take them under advisement with regard to inclusion? 

Senator Watkins. That would be proper. 

Mr. Morris. I would like the record to show, Mr. Chariman, that 
I did ask Mr. Friechiian earlier today if he had such papers if he 
would submit them to me by way of facilitating their introduction 
into the record, and he declined to show them. 

Mr. Friedman. Would the record, Mr. Chairman, also show that I 
took the initiative in mentioning this to Mr. Morris? 

Senator Watkins. You mentioned it, but did you decline to let him 
have them ? 

Mr. Friedman. I suggested that I would wait until you arrived, sir. 

Senator Watkins. As I indicated, the Chair will allow you to leave 
the documents here for the purpose of checking them to see whether 
or not they are properly admissible. 

We do not know what is in them • we have not seen them. We want 
to know what goes into this record. In other words, that is our re- 
sponsibility. 

Mr. Sourwine. The first specific offer you are making is your 
record ? 

Mr. Friedman. The first specific offer is a Department of Foreign 
Service personnel notice, dated October 14, 1946. 

Senator Watkins. That is identified sufficiently, I take it, for the 
purpose of the record. I do not want you to read what is in it. 

Mr. Friedman. I want to describe what is under the words "nature 
of action" since it will then identify the document. 

Senator Watkins. Is that not self-apparent without you explain- 
ing that it is there ? 

Mr. Friedman. I feel at this point that if I am leaving it for the 
committee perhaps I should identify it b}^ its title. 

Senator Watkins. Proceed. 

Mr. Friedman. "Nature of action, termination of services without 
prejudice." 

The second document, also Division of Foreign Service Personnel, 
dated June 4, 1947, with the title "Termination and lump-sum pay- 
ment." 

Air. Sourwine. Mr. Friedman, when a man resigns from the State 
Department, is that technically a termination of services without 
prejudice? 

Mr. Friedman. I am introducing into the record 

]\Ir. Morris. You are offering to be introduced into the record. 

Mr. Friedman. I am offering. Excuse me. I am not familiar with 
the procedures. 

Senator Watkins. You can give the date of the letter, and if it is 
your letter, without telling us what is in it. That is what we want. 

Mr. Friedman. This is a letter dated November 6, 1951, signed by 
Elbridge Durbrow, Chief, Division of Foreign Service Personnel. 

Senator Watkins. That is enough identification. 

Mr. Sourwine. My question, sir, which remains unanswered, is 
when an official of the State Department or an employee of the State 
Department resigns, is tliat technically termination without prej- 
udice ? 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4343 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I believe it is. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Did you resign? 

Mr. Friedman. Xo, sir ; I did not resign. 

Mr. Sourwine. Your severance was involuntary as far as you are 
concerned? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; my severance was voluntary, and I waited 
for the State Department procedures to effectuate the act of termina- 
tion. 

Mr. Sourwine. You mean you elected to leave ? 

Mr. Friedman. I desired to leave; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you communicate your desire to the superiors 
or superior in any way ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRAViNE. But you did not resign? 

]\[r. Friedman. I communicated my desires to my chief in Shanghai 
on at least two occasions, and I informed Mr. Vincent in Washington, 
and lie was still the Director, that I was preparing to leave the Foreign 
Service of the United States. 

At that time, legislation on the Foreign Service was about to go into 
effect, and I waited for that legislation to take place. 

Mr. SouKwiNE. Were you technically in the Foreign Service of 
the United States? 

Mr. Friedman. I was on the Foreign Service auxiliary which 
terminated with this new legislation of November 1946. 

Mr. Sourwine. But you did not resign ? 

Mr. Friedman, I did not submit a letter of resignation, no, sir. 

Senator Watkins. Wliat you did was tantamount, was it not, to a 
resignation ? 

Mr. Friedman. It was my wish to leave. 

Senator Watkins. That is Avhat you say, "I want to leave." That 
was a resignation. "I want to leave, and I am going to leave, the 



service." 



Mr. Friedman. If I may just explain this point, since Mr. Sour- 
wine has raised it, that when the State Department inquired which 
^ anted to stay and which wanted to leave, in the Foreign Service, and 
this was in August of 194G, I tlien informed my superior that I was 
prepared to stay on until about June 19-i7, in the course of which I 
was hoping a successor would come out and I would break him in. 

Then subsequently I decided that I would like to leave by the first 
of the year, and the Depaitment decided that the best date was this 
date of the new legislation taking effect. 

Mr. Sourwine. You have another specific offer for the record? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. This will be your offer number four. 

Mr. Friedman. Will I receive from the committee a receipt for 
these documents? 

Senator Watkins. I think we can. 

Mr. Sourwine. Do you want the documents returned to you? 

Mr. Friedman. I should like them returned to me. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are offering them for the record. How are 
we going to have them in the record if you want them returned ? 

Mr. Friedman. Perhaps after the conclusion, if the committee de- 
cides to include them in the record, the actual documents will be re- 
turned to me. 



4344 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Mr. Soura\t;ne. I do not see how we can pnt a document in our record 
and return it to you at the same time? 

Mr. Friedman. Perhaps a copy can be made for that purpose. 

Mr. Morris. They are photostatic copies, are tliey not? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. In any event, the record stands clear that you de- 
sire to have these documents returned to you. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. These are not originals, are they? 

Mr. Friedman. These are photostatic copies. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Wlio procured the ])hotostats? 

Mr. Friedman. I did. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Yourself? You did not niake them, did you? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. They were made commercially? 

Mr. Friediman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. From the originals? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

]\Ir. SouRwiNE. The originals are in your possession ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. If the originals are in your possession, why do you 
want the photostats back ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, if the committee would prefer the photostats, 
1 would prefer to keep the originals myself. 

Mr. Sourwine. I asked you if the originals were in your possession, 
why do you want the photostats back ? 

Senator Watkins. In other words, what yo.u are submitting here 
are photostats, and we are wondering why you want those back, if you 
have the originals. 

Mr. Friedman. I think just to preserve them and not to have to make 
any new ones, if there are any further hearings. 

Mr. Sourwine. What you are oifering the committee here are photo- 
stats that you have had made of original documents in your possession, 
and you are asking that the photostats be returned to you ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

May I also offer another exhibit which I believe will complete the 
description of Mrs. Widener, who testified before the committee, and 
whose civil service was introduced into the record with the excei:)tion 
of her letter of resignation or termination. Therefore, I should like 
to submit for the record and the consideration of this conmiittee two 
articles that appeared 

Senator Eastland (presiding). You may proceed. Let me get my 
bearings. If you want to offer something, you want to otfer something 
iu the record? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Eastland. You have to submit it to the counsel. 

Mr. Friedman. I was following — I don't quite know the procedures. 

Senator Easti^and. I say submit it to the counsel and I will hear 
from him whether he wants to object to it. 

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, generallv if we have witnesses who 
want something introduced into the record, by way of expediting and 
facilitating its entry into the record it is our practice, either in execu- 
tive session or in formal hearings before the committee 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4345 

Senator Eastland. Wait a minute. I understand the background. 
But whatever goes in, it shouhl be submitted to the counsel, and when 
it goes in I will hear from the counsel, whether he objects to it or what. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. The witness wanted the record at this time to show 
what he was offering for the chair to pass upon after counsel had had 
an opportunity to study it. 

Senator Eastland. Have you objections? 

Mr. Morris. I have objections. I think it is an unnecessary step 
that the witness is taking. We have been most liberal in introducing 
things into the record. 

Senator Eastland. AVhat I want to do is to file the stuff with you, 
all of it. Then when you go over it I will hear from you as to what 
your objections are, and pass upon it at that time. 

Mr. Friedman. Then you just wish me, without saying anything 
further, to hand this to Mr. Morris? 

Senator Eastland. Yes, file the stuff with him. 

Mr. Friedman. Will we be able to identify them ? 

Mr. Morris. They will bo ])roperly identified. 

Senator Eastl.\nd. It will be properly identified if I let it go into 
the record. I w411 let it go into the record if he does not object. If 
he objects, I will hear his grounds of objecting, and then I will pass 
upon it. 

Mr. Friedman. I see. But may I just say a word to indicate to 
Mr. Morris which articles I am introducing ? 

Senator Eastland. I wish you would just let him have the stuff 
that you want to go in. You can make a list of it, if you want to, get 
him to sign it, if you want to, and he will give you a receipt for it. 

Mr. Friedman. May I then offer another document, sir, which is a 
typewritten copy of a testimonial ? 

Senator Eastland. The same ruling is going to apply to all of those. 
With anything like that, just give it to him and if you want a receipt 
for it, he will give you a receipt. 

(The documents referred to were marked exhibits Numbers T41A, 
741B, 741C, 741D, 741E, and 741F, and are as follows:) 



4346 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



Exhibit No. 741-A 



i 

i 

rpsAOs 

1 i^^^- 



DEPARTMENT OF STATE 



I. 



Friefia&a Jviltm 



H. 



i_ &.2»m 



teralrjation of services without prejudice 



to b« 






&A-OU-. S.JlU^p-> 



|;>^&48 l__ 






: A>^-ff^M^iiiJ^i }i..-vi 






1970609 



Abol*4h0a 



-: WKMABKS 



03t.l4,l$M.. 



1970609 



—I 



! Re&gorj of t0r«ia«.tioa du« tc lt<|ul<S&tios of Aaxlll«ry Serrioe, 

:• SffeotlT® !iat« to be established after arriY&I in U.S. Trsvsi should 
:: be coapisted before 11,12,46 



3S3 



i Amer* can 






single 



'■■->W Th^ '^CWi^. : A>1Y C^' SfATC 



EMPuovees, gpf'v 



. f I- O '^f 



«XIC£«S^^^^'«VA A^ 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 



4347 



Exhibit No. 741-B 



rf:il**(*a f» »4« A«vi««o lA ** 



F4-:JD3, 



omsfON or foressn stsvice persownel 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE 



6-4»47 



^_Taim.-^i Jailax; _Ji. /•.- L<>-2»20 






; COB li-15-46 



1970551 



)■■>•';«: ■':»^' 'ttuft 



»a»itC SALAWV 



P » O M 



ed 63 tisi.nsit uiioisa&l'y by aixli 
Ceatre, K,Y. i; 



f" 

J 

SH-69 



;'i'><>iT(C''N 



! >5i!;MAfti<S; Terisi afttloii c-f aorvicea llucut prejudice sfrective OCS lX-iij-46|:;; 

I Isave itfvi j2 1/2 Giiys uccrueu correLt (iiijiUj.l l^^i.ve. i'ayrsieat to ;:» :,;.;t 
by D8i,fc-r t-raiijit, Furi-iser C50i;.,Siuaio?atiO«a rs/^ai'liite liijsi -sum puysie.-a s„-,..i^ |; 
OS uddrttsssd to tiia Division oi" fia^naei, ;] 



-(li- *^ i  V ^i t 



*■? O^ C')--.,v:<^>j 






<l 



..**■ or T«6 



EMPLOYEE'S COPY 



i Of ?o>is "'M se* 



li-afso :'X«s*j 



Exhibit No. 741-C 

Depaetment of State, 
Washington, November 6, 1951. 
In reply refer to : FP 

Mr. Julian R. Friedman, 

18 Davison Place, Rockville Centre, New York. 
Deae Mb. Friedman : Your letter of September 28, 1951, regarding an article 
appearing in the September 19 issue of the Herald Tribune has been referred to 
me for reply. 



4348 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

In 1946, you were one of approximately 80 officers in the Foreign Service who 
were tenuiiiated as a result of the liquidation of the Foreign Service Auxiliary. 
As you know, this was a temporary wartime brancx ^^ ch- Department of State 
whfch was abolished on Novemlier 12, li)4(J. following the passage of the Foreign 
Service Act of 11)40. The term "Without prejudice" was rather broadly used 
at that time for separation of employees because of reductions in force, resigna- 
tions for personal reasons, or, as in this case, terminations due to the discon- 
tinuance of the Auxiliary branch of the Foreign Service. 

It will not be possible to supply you with the various communications you 
request, since the policy of the Department precludes the release of this material. 
Furthermore, the Department released no information to the press regarding your 
employment or your termination from the Foreign Service. Any statements 
purportedly made by Mr. Eugene Dooman were made by him as a private indi- 
vidual, and not as a State Department official. :\Ir. Dooman has not been an 
employee of the Department of State since 1945. 
Sincerely yours, 

[s] Elbridge Durbrow 
Elbridge Dukbrow. 
Chief, Division of Foreign Service Personnel. 



Exhibit No. 741-D 

The London School of Economics and Political Science 

(Universitj- of London) 

Houghton Street, Aldwych, 

LONDON, W. C. 2 

Mr. Julian R. Friedman was accepted by this School as a graduate student in 
March 1!>47. His knowledge of and interest in the social and allied problems of 
colonial teri-itories attracted the attention of his supervisors, and as there was 
then a vacancy on the teaching staff of the School he was invited to become an 
assistant lecturer in colonial social science in the autumn of 1947. At that time 
the London School of Economics was conducting a course in colonial social studies 
at the request of the Colonial Office, and it was in the arrangements for the 
teaching for this course that Mr. Friedman participated. We were entirely satis- 
fied with the way in which he carried out his duties, and in October 1950 he was 
appointed to a lectureship in colonial administration, since it was in this par- 
ticular sphere that his interests were concentrated. Once again we were entirely 
satisfied with the manner in which he discharged his duties. He has now 
decided to return to the United States, and indeed he had told us from the begin- 
ning that his stay in this country would only be for a short period of years. 

Mr. Friedman has been a most welcome member of the staff and has taken 
a full part in the social life of the School. He served for a period as the secretary 
of the Senior Common Room. The teaching duties allotted to him were not 
easy to carry out because the field is not very clearly defined ; there is an absence 
of literature and no established tradition of instruction. Mr. Friedman over- 
came these difficulties. He is a careful and conscientious teacher who has the 
interests of his students much in mind. Some of these students have been officers 
of British colonial governments seconded to this country for the purpose of taking 
a year's course at this School. It was obvious that this country to undertake 
the instructi<m of students of this class. Mi'. Friedman showed that he pos.sesses 
the tact and accomplishment necessary for this uiuisual and difficult duty, and 
this is a very considerable tribute to him. He has shown in his publications 
considerable breadth of mind and power of understanding; and he has greatly 
deepened and enlarged his interests since he has been with us. He is in a 
sense an explorer in a new country, the boundaries of which are not clearly visible, 
lluis it is more difficult than elsewhere to produce results. It is greatly to his 
credit that he has not rushed in and attempted to make contributions before 
he had consolidated his background. What he has contributed shows great 
promise of the future. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4349 

I have no hesitation whatever in recommending Mr. Friedman as a most 
valuable member of the ''^''ff of a university, 

(Signed) A. M. Caek-Saunders, 

Director. 
28th May, 1951. 

Original to Dr. B. Stewart, Dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 
Medford, Massachusetts. 
Copied by : JRF. 
Checked by : . 



Exhibit No. 741-E 

[New York Journal-American, Wednesday, December 12, 1951] 

Accuses Voice of Censoring Slaps at Reds — -Writer Says Script Cut 

(By Howard Rushmore) 

Voice of America scripts which contained "too hard-hitting criticisms" of 
Russia and not enough of the State Department's oflBcial "subtle and indirect 
approach" to the subject were censored by the local voice office, a veteran radio 
writer charged today. 

Mrs. Alice Widener of 829 Park ave., said portions of her original scripts 

were cut to eliminate "criticisms which I considered factual and direct based 

on thorough research and investigation." 

Mrs. Widener, who prepared 40 scripts for the Voice of America's overseas 

short wave at the standard rate of $40 per script said some of these documents 

were now being studied by the Senate subcommittee on Internal Security. 

HER SCRIPT SUBPOENAED 

Mrs. Widener, who appeared as a witness before the Senate group in public 
hearings last Summer in connection with public hearings on the Institute of 
Pacific Relations, said she had testified "for two hours in closed sessions on the 
Voice of America." 

Copies of her original scripts and those used in the actual broadcast were 
then subpoenaed by the subcommittee, Mrs. Widener said. 
The free-lance writer worked for the State Department's local oflice, 224 W. 
57th St., from January to June of this year. 

Mrs. Widener said her chief objection came when her scripts dealing with the 
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund were cut to eliminate 
criticism of Russia "turning this worth-while cause" into "a political football, 
while refusing to contribute funds." 

Since the UN organization was founded in 1946, the United States has given 
$75,000,000, with 45 other nations giving $115,000,000 including such "war-wrecked 
nations as Belgium and Holland," Mrs. Widener said. 

"I was asked to prepare a script for international broadcast pointing up 
the value of this children's group," she added. 

"Three paragraphs of my script were directly critical of Russia's refusal 
to contribute to the world's hungry children. They were cut out of the 
broadcast with only a one-sentence rebuke to Stalin left in." 

DEa:,ETED ITEM BARED 

Mrs. Widener produced her original script and the official State Department 
broadcast which eliminated the following criticism : 

"A representative of the Soviet Union does play a political part in 
UNICEF by setting on the executive committee. However, this man and 
his government seem perfectly content merely to sit and talk about suffering 
children. 

"Today millions of grateful mothers whose children have thrived and 

progressed under UNICEF care can say 'the Communists sit and talk about 

defending children. But people in free countries act to defend children." 

The official broadcast mentioned Russia's refusal to contribute money to 

children's relief but all other criticism was removed by Mrs. Widener's superiors. 

88348— 52— pt. 12 21 



4350 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

RUMANIA SCRIPT CUT 

On another occasion, Mrs. Widener said she had been assigned to prepare a 
script answering a Rumanian propaganda statement that a mother of nine 
children in that satellite nation had gone to work on a factory night-shift to 
show her loyalty to Stalin. 

Her original script contained the following paragraph which was cut by the 
Voice of America in the final broadcast : 

"People in free countries wish to know about the sincerity of Olena 
Pichkova's (the Rumanian mother) gratitude to Stalin. Is it really pos- 
sible that a woman can be grateful to a political leader for the fact that her 
nine sleeping children are left without a mother's care at night." 
Another script by Mrs. Widener dealing with the same subject had the follow- 
ing criticism deleted in the actual broadcast : 

"It's easy to understand just why these Rumanian women and all women 
in Communist lands are so worried about what a mother can do for her 
small children while she's away at work. 

"Now that millions of these women have been lured and forced by Com- 
munists to take jobs outside the home, mothers are facing the tragic fact 
that neither the Soviet government nor any other Communist regime can 
provide enough child-care centers and day nurseries to meet maternal needs." 
Mrs. Widener said she was dismissed after six months and was told that her 
scripts "were too hard-hitting and not the subtle and indirect approach" re- 
quired of State Department writers. 

"My superiors were not Communists," Mrs. Widener told the N. T. Journal- 
American. "They were merely following their orders from Washington. 
But most of the principal propaganda points in my scripts were either 
eliminated or weakened here. 

"But I believe that people behind the iron curtain who risk their lives 
to listen to our broadcasts want direct truth and not 'subtle and indirect' 
propaganda. That was what I tried to give them. And I found that the 
Voice of America didn't want it." 



Exhibit No. 471-F 
[New York Journal American, December 13, 1951] 

"Time Limitations" — Officials Explain "Voice" Deletions 

(By Howard Rushmore) 

Voice of America oflScials today said that deletions were made in the Anti- 
Russian scripts of a writer for the State Department's propaganda agency 
because of "time limitations" and "too much editorial content." 

Mrs. Alice Widener, 829 Park Ave., had charged that cuts were made in some 
of the 40 programs she did for the Voice because her superiors told her the scripts 
"were too hard-hitting." 

Foy D. Kohler, chief of the Voice of America, said at his office, 251 W. 57th St., 
that Mrs. Widener had "never done anything we considered at all useful." 

action defended 

In reply Mrs. Widener's accusation that the Voice wanted more "subtle and 
indirect" writing dealing with the Russian scene, Kohler said : 

"We never considered her one of our psychological warriors, skilled in various 
forms of propaganda. We have been accused of being too hard-hitting by West- 
ern European audiences where we must use the subtle approach. 

"We have to tailor our broadcasts to fit the audiences." 

Mrs. Widener's immediate superiors, who terminated her employment as a 
free lance script writer last June, complained that Mrs. Widener "used too much 
editorializing in her scripts after her point had been made." 

deletion quoted " 

Mrs. Widener had stated one of the important deletions of her script dealt with 
Russia's refusal to contribute any money to the United Nations International 
Children's Emergency Fund. 



INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4351 

The deletion which the State Department now claims was too "editorial" for 
their anti-Russian propaganda follows : 

"A representative of the Soviet Union does play a political part in UNICEF 
by sitting on the executive committee. However, this man and his government 
seem perfectly content merely to sit and talk about suffering children. 

"Today millions of grateful mothers whose children have thrived and pro- 
gressed under UNICEP care can say 'the Communists sit and talk about defend- 
ing children. But people in free countries act to defend children'." 

"suepeised" 

Mrs. Widener said that she was surprised that Kohler had accused her of 
incompetence. 

"Last Summer Mrs. Olive Eemington Goldman wrote Mr. Kohler praising my 
assistance and advice given during the sessions of the UN Commission on the 
Status of Women at which Mrs. Goldman was the United States delegate," she 
declared. 

"In this letter, Mrs. Goldman told Mr. Kohler that the Voice should be praised 
for having me connected with it. 

"I never knew that Mrs. Goldman sent this letter until she told me several 
weeks later. She expressed surprise that Mr. Kohler had not told me about it." 

JNIr. Friedman. Fine, thank you, sir. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Mr. Friedman, I want to run throuo^h a list of pub- 
lications liei-e, and I will lay the foundation very briefly. 

In connection with your work in the State Department and your 
interest in the Far East, did you think it necessary or desirable to 
do any readincr in literature having to do with the Chinese Commu- 
nist movement ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir, I did believe it desirable to read, 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you read some such literature? 

]\Ir. Friedman. Yes, sir. I believe at the time that I read such a 
book as Mr. Gunther Stein's Red Challenge. 

Mr. Sourwine. I would like to read through this list and if you 
remember having read any of these please say so. 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir. That is, remember reading them at the 
time of my employment in the State Department ? 

Mr. Sourwine. If you remember you ever read the book. Years of 
Fulfillment, by Harriet Moore? 

Mr. Friedman. No. 

Mr. Sourwine. Soviet Communism, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb ? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe I read parts of that; yes, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. The Soviet State, by B. W. Maxwell ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that. 

Mr. Sourwine. The Racial Myth, by Paul Radin ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I have read Mr, Radin's book. 

Mr. Sourwine, Did you read Ryuiche Kaji's review of that, by 
any chance? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall ; no, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Soviet Russia Fights Crime, by Lenka von Koer- 
ber? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that volume. Is that a book or a 
pamphlet ? Would you have some indication ? 

Mr. Sourwine. The distinction between pamphlets fonns and book 
forms is one I would not be prepared to answer with regard to 
that publication. 

Mr. Friedman. It might assist. 

Mr. Sourwine. A Soviet Study of the American Position in the 
Far East, by Harriet Moore? 



yar? 




Mr. 


Friedman. 


Mr. 


SOURWINE 


History? 


Mr. 


Friedman. 


Mr. 


SoURWlNE. 


Society? 


Mr. 


Friedman. 


Mr. 


Sourwine, 



4352 msTiTUTE of pacific relations 

Mr. Friedman. I don't believe I have read that. 
Mr. Sourwine. Literature on the Chinese Soviet Movement, a bibli- 
ography prepared by the American Council, Institute of Pacific Re- 
lations? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall on that. 

INIr. Sourwine. The Agricultural Economy of China, by L. Mad- 
No, I don't recall that volume. 
Karl Eadek's Theoretical Analysis of Chinese 

No, sir, I don't believe I have ever read that. 
Safarov's History of the Development of Chinese 

I am not familiar with (hat first-hand, no, sir. 
The Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies, 
Thesis of the Sixth World Congi*ess of the Communist International ? 

Mr. Friedman. I may have read that, yes, sir. I am not sure. 

Mr. Sourwine. Between the Fifth and the Sixth World Congresses, 
1924—28 : A report on the position of all sections of the world Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. I am not sure of that. 

Mr. Sourwine. Yelk's The Chinese Revolution ? 

Mr. Friedman. Would you spell the author's name, please? 

Mr. Sourwine. Y-e-l-k. 

Mr. Friedman. No, I don't believe I have read that volume. 

Mr, Sourwine. British Imperialisms in China, by G. Voitinsky? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that volume either. 

Mr. Sourwine. Hansu Chan, Sun Yat-sen and the Chinese Revo- 
lution, an article in China Today ? 

Mr. Friedman. Would you pronounce that again ? 

Mr. Sourwine. Hansu Chan, Sun Yat-sen and the Chinese Revolu- 
tion? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't recall that. 

Mr. Sourwine. The Situation in China by G. Voitinsky? 

Mr. Friedman. Again I don't recall tJiat one. 

Mr. Sourwine. Resolution on the Chinese Question Passed by the 
Sixth Plenum of the Enlarged Executive Committee of the Com- 
munist International ? 

Mr. Friedman. Again I don't recall whether I have read that. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did j^ou ever read any of the volumes of the publica- 
tion Imprecorr? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe not, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. You know what that publication is? 

Mr. Friedman. I believe it would be a publication of the Com- 
munist International. 

Mr. Sourwine. International press correspondence, yes. 

Mr. Friedman. International press correspondence. 

Mr. Sourwine. You are correct about the publication. 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I have read that, no, sir. 

Mr. Sourwine. Did you read a speech by Stalin in the Chinese Com- 
mission of the Seventh Plenum which was published in pamphlet 
form? 

Mr. Friedman. Again I believe I have read speeches by Stalin on 
China and I am pretty sure that would have been included. 



mSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 4353 

Mr. SouRwiNE. I have just a few more questions ? 

Senator PjAStland. You may proceed. 

Mr. SouRwiNE. Are you now or have you ever been a member of 
the Communist Party of the United States or of any other country? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I am not a member of the Communist Party 
of the United States; I have never been, and I am not a member and 
have never been a member, of the Communist Party of any country. 

Senator Eastland. Were you ever solicited by any one to join the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir ; I don't believe so. 

Senator Eastland. Did you ever discuss it with any member ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have never discussed joining the Communist 
Party. 

Senator Eastland, Have you ever discussed communism with mem- 
bers of the party ? 

Mr. Friedman. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Senator Eastland. Who were they ? 

Mr. Friedman. I referred to Mr. John Horner, of the British Com- 
munist Party, of whom I have discussed communism ; yes, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Who in the United States ? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I have ever discussed communism with 
any American Communists. 

Senator Eastland. AVliat Communists or pro-Communists have you 
associated with in this country? 

Mr. Friedman. In this country ? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. That is, such as Mr. Lattimore. Who else ? 

Mr. Friedman. Are you identifying Mr. Lattimore as a Communist 
or pro-Communist, Senator? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Mr. Friedman. The only answer I can give is that I have associated 
with Mr. Lattimore ; yes, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Wlio else ? 

Mr. Friedman. Well, if you could be more specific, perhaps I can 
give you a specific answer. 

Senator Eastland. I cannot be specific. I want information. I 
am asking a question to get information. 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think I 

Mr. Morris. You have associated with Israel Epstein have you not ? 

Mr. Friedman. I have met Mr. Epstein ; yes, sir. 

Mr. JNIoRRis. You have associated with him, have you not? 

Mr. Friedman. I have been at his home ; yes. 

Mr. INIoRRis. And do you think he is a Communist? 

Mr. Friedman. I think I can say that he is a pro-Communist; yes, 
sir. 

Mr. Morris. Are you being responsive to Senator Eastland's ques- 
tion under the circumstances ? 

Mr. Friedman. If you mentioned Epstein, yes; I know Epstein. 

Senator Eastland. I did not mention it. I asked you the question. 
Who else is there ? 

Mr. Friedman. 1 just don't recall any American Communists or pro- 
Communists with whom I have discussed communism. 

Mr. Morris. Did you ever discuss it with A^nes Smedley ? 

Mr. Friedman. I think I have discussed China with Agnes Smed- 
ley without discussing communism with Agnes Smedley. 



4354 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 

Senator Eastland. You associated with Agues Smedley? She was 
an associate of yours ? 

Mr. Friedman. She was not an associate. I have been acquainted 
with Agnes Smedley ; yes, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Are you a Marxist? 

Mr. Friedman. I don't think so, and I don't think the Marxists con- 
sider me one, sir. 

Senator Eastland. Would you call yourself a sympathizer to com- 
munism ? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I would not call myself a sympathizer with 
communism. I have my own affirmative views on matters political 
and they are certainly not consistent with the views of the Communists. 

Senator Eastland. Proceed. 

Mr. Sourwine. Have you ever knowingly assisted the Communist 
Party of any country, or any person or persons known to you to be 
Communists or pro-Communists? 

Mr. Friedman. No, sir; I don't believe I have ever